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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing what is returned (variant/evidence-item/assertion counts) and the numeric CIViC feature id, which is the key handoff artifact.

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?

Front-loads the action and resource, then layers the authoritative framing and the return contract. The CIViC tagline sentence is slightly promotional but earns some of its place by orienting the agent to what the knowledgebase covers.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the counts and the feature id. Safety is handled by annotations and params by the schema, leaving it essentially complete for a simple two-param search tool, with only minor gaps like pagination behavior.

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 both query and limit fully. The description's 'by name or symbol' reinforces the query parameter but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (cancer genes and fusions in CIViC) scoped by name/symbol. It distinguishes itself from the sibling civic_assertions, civic_gene_variants, and civic_variant_evidence tools by positioning itself as the entry point that returns the feature id those tools consume.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as the 'AUTHORITATIVE starting point' for 'what does CIViC know about gene X', which tells the agent when to reach for it and how it chains into the other civic tools. It stops short of naming a specific alternative to avoid, so it sits at a strong 4 rather than 5.

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