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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the structure: exact variant mentions rank ahead of broader gene associations, and the results should not be interpreted as establishing causality, pathogenicity, or diagnosis. This compounds the tool's behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 and well-structured: the first sentence explains the core function, the second provides usage guidance, and the third adds an important caveat. Every sentence contributes meaningful information and the critical constraints are front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides the key operational details needed to call the tool correctly: the genome assembly requirement, the ranking behavior, and the clinical classification caveat. It could be slightly more explicit about how gene-level queries are handled, but it is otherwise quite complete for a surgical tool.

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 the query, limit, assembly, and question parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces that query is a variant identifier rather than a natural-language question, but this is also present in the schema's parameter description. The description does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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: resolve a GRCh38 variant and retrieve publications from Folklore's PubMed-derived corpus. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by focusing on exact variant mentions ranking ahead of gene associations, which clarifies what makes this tool distinct from a general literature search.

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 explicitly says to use the tool when a user asks what has been published about a variant, gene, or associated condition. It does not mention exclusions or directly name these siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know this tool is appropriate for variant-centric literature questions.

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