sra_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by enumerating exactly what is returned (experiment/study/sample accessions, organism, library strategy, run count, first_run_accession) and noting cross-database accession prefixes (SRA/ENA/DDBJ) are all resolvable downstream. Pagination behavior and empty-result handling are left to the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supported query forms and the return/result-chaining contract. Slight redundancy with the schema's query description, but no padding or 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so concretely, including which fields enable chaining into sra_get. What remains unstated (pagination defaults, error/no-match behavior) is minor and largely covered by the schema parameters.

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 query, limit, and offset semantics are already documented in the schema. The description restates the query forms (free text, accession, field syntax), which adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema's own description of the same parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (NCBI SRA for sequencing experiments and runs) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling sra_get by noting results are 'all resolvable by sra_get' and that first_run_accession is 'for chaining into sra_get'. An agent can differentiate it from geo_search or genbank_search by the resource named.

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?

Explains the accepted query forms (free text, accession, NCBI field syntax) and routes to sra_get for detail retrieval, which clarifies the search-then-fetch workflow. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., preferring geo_search for GEO series or genbank_search for nucleotides), leaving that to inference from the resource name.

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