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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that merged-name variants are supported and that the tool maps to a haplogroup, but it does not describe behavior on invalid names, naming conventions, or output shape. This is acceptable but lean for a lookup tool.

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 short and front-loaded, with the primary purpose stated first. The bilingual repeat adds a little redundancy but remains compact and does not obscure meaning.

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 tool, the description states the core function, but it lacks return-format details and does not situate the tool among its siblings, especially the near-identical plural resolve_snps. An agent may struggle to know when to pick this over resolve_snps.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description barely adds meaning beyond the schema: 'SNP name' only restates the parameter name 'snpname.' No format examples, accepted naming styles (e.g., rsIDs), or merged-name syntax are provided, so the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action — resolving a SNP name to its haplogroup — and mentions returning equivalent names with merged-name variant support. It is distinct enough from siblings by its singular focus, though it does not explicitly contrast with resolve_snps.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus resolve_snps or other sibling tools. The singular 'a SNP name' hints at one-name-only usage, but the plural sibling resolve_snps is never mentioned, nor are any exclusions or conditions described.

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