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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by revealing the output structure (one-line summary and category per gene), which is useful for the agent's expectation of the response. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List the genes') and then adds the output detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: the action, the source (DeepDNA knowledge base), and the output content (summary and category). There are no significant gaps, and the sibling tools are clearly differentiated by their lookup nature.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and provides complete coverage (100%). There are no parameter details to explain, and the description correctly omits any. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to compensate for.

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 the tool lists genes from the DeepDNA knowledge base and specifies the output includes a one-line summary and category. This is a specific verb-resource pair that inherently distinguishes it from the sibling lookup tools, which focus on retrieving individual records rather than enumerating all entries.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling lookup tools. The intent is implied – use this for an overview of all genes, while lookups are for specific queries – but no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives are provided.

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