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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the batch limit (200) but does not mention error handling, behavior on invalid SNP names, or whether it is read-only. For a lookup tool this is acceptable but not rich. It adds the limit constraint, which is useful, but otherwise lacks behavioral detail.

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 compact, with the core action and limit front-loaded. The bilingual duplication is not wasteful since it's a single line, and every word adds value. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description doesn't specify the return format or error behavior, which an agent might need for batch results. It's not missing critical info for invocation, but could be more complete for downstream handling.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already defines the array. The description adds a crucial constraint not in the schema: the ≤200 limit per call. This extra semantic guidance pushes it above the baseline of 3.

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 it batch-resolves SNP names to haplogroups, with a specific limit of 200. It distinguishes itself from the sibling resolve_snp (singular) by being a batch operation for reading a whole panel, so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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 provides a usage context ('for reading a whole Y-SNP panel') that implies when to choose this tool over resolve_snp. It doesn't explicitly say 'use resolve_snp for single SNP', but the sibling naming and the batch context make the routing clear. Slight lack of explicit exclusions, hence 4.

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