search_genes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: no indication whether this searches a remote registry vs. local installs, no pagination cost or rate-limit note, no statement of what an empty result means. 'Returns a list of Genes' is the only behavioral fact offered.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though truncating the actual return semantics makes the brevity slightly costly.

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 six-parameter, unannotated, output-schema-less search tool, the description is thin: it never explains the paginated return (page/per_page exist but the description implies a flat list) or the relevance-vs-newest default sort behavior that the schema hints at. An agent lacks the context to predict result shape or empty-result behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the six parameters (query, domain, fidelity, page, per_page, sort) are fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only a restatement of the domain and fidelity filters and no format details, examples, or interaction rules beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb (Search) and resource (Gene ecosystem) and states the return shape — a list of Genes — plus the two filter axes. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like list_local_genes or scan_genes, so an agent can't tell which search surface to pick from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this is preferable to list_local_genes, scan_genes, or get_gene_detail, and no prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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