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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: 'RETURNS: 基因信息' restates the title and the closed-world nature of the underlying source (which database, coverage, whether results can be empty for unknown symbols) is never disclosed.

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 front-loaded 'USE WHEN' and 'RETURNS' sections are scannable, but the pipe-delimited alias list (基因信息, 这个基因是干什么的, gene function, 别名...) is largely redundant with the trigger sentence and bloats the definition without adding selection signal.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the field list in 'USE WHEN' effectively communicates what comes back (name, aliases, function, location). A note on source database or empty-result behavior would complete it, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single query parameter is documented as '基因名/关键词'. The description's mention of aliases implies that alias strings are accepted as query input, which is a modest addition, but no format, case-sensitivity, or multi-gene behavior is clarified. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (gene) and enumerates exactly what information it returns: full name, aliases, function, and location. This clearly separates it from neighboring tools such as gene_pathway_disease or protein_enrichment, though the sibling distinction is implied by the field list rather than stated outright.

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?

'USE WHEN: what a gene does' gives a clear trigger condition an agent can match against a user question. There is no explicit when-not clause and no named alternative tool (e.g., pointing to gene_pathway_disease when the question is about pathways or disease associations), which keeps it short of a 5.

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