wormbase_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does state that the tool returns a list of matching genes with ID, symbol, and name. However, it does not disclose limitations such as matching semantics, result limits, pagination, or whether results are restricted only to C. elegans beyond the explicit species mention.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core statement is short and front-loaded, but the description repeats nearly the same content in English and Chinese. The Chinese sentence does add detail about input types and output fields, yet some of that information is duplicated, making the entry less concise than it could be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the organism, the query semantics, and the output content. It does not explain how to choose this tool over closely related siblings, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only provides the parameter name 'term' with no description, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the term can be a gene name, function, or symbol, giving the agent meaningful guidance on what to pass. It stops short of specifying format details like case sensitivity or wildcard support.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: searching C. elegans genes by keyword. It also adds useful detail about supported query types and returned fields (gene ID, symbol, name). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling lookup tools like wormbase_gene.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied: keyword-driven gene discovery using a gene name, function, or symbol. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternative to choose, such as wormbase_gene for exact gene records or other species-specific search tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.