geo_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: every result carries accession, bioproject, and pubmed_ids, and sra_project appears only when NCBI has linked the SRA study. The caveat that geo_get is the reliable route to SRA accessions is especially useful and not conveyed by annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then efficiently adds query syntax and downstream-routing details. Every sentence carries useful information, including the important conditional caveat about sra_project, with no filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the key result fields and explaining the conditional sra_project behavior. It also routes agents to geo_get, article_get, and sra_get appropriately, making it complete enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds meaningful query semantics by showing both plain-term and NCBI field-syntax forms, which goes beyond the schema’s free-text examples, though it does not add per-parameter details for organism or entry_type beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching NCBI GEO for functional genomics studies, with concrete scope including expression microarrays, RNA-seq, and high-throughput sequencing series. It also implicitly differentiates from geo_get by explaining that search results carry accessions that can be passed to geo_get for full details.

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?

It gives clear usage context by explaining that queries accept plain terms or NCBI field syntax and by naming downstream tools for accessions, PubMed IDs, and SRA projects. It does not explicitly state when to prefer geo_search over sibling searches such as sra_search or genbank_search, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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