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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the per-input return shape (converted ID, resolved gene name, description, hit count) and the ambiguity-preserving behavior where an ambiguous symbol surfaces as ambiguous rather than silently resolving.

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 slash-separated example queries double as fast routing cues, and the core claim plus return behavior follow immediately. It is slightly dense and mixes user phrasings with specification, but nothing is truly wasted.

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 describing the four fields per input ID. Species handling and ambiguity behavior are covered; the only real omission is the contrast with ortholog mapping, which matters given the sibling 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents query, target, organism code format, and numeric_namespace ambiguity in detail. The description echoes namespace breadth ("any supported species", probe IDs), which adds marginal value only, 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?

The description names a specific verb (Convert) and resource (gene/protein/transcript/probe identifiers) and enumerates the namespaces involved, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It stops short of naming its closest sibling, gprofiler_orthologs, leaving a small ambiguity about within-species conversion vs. cross-species mapping.

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?

Leading quoted user phrasings ("what is the Ensembl/Entrez/UniProt ID for [gene]") plus the explicit "PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH for ID mapping" give clear when-to-use context and a routing alternative. It does not, however, state when-not to use it or point to gprofiler_orthologs for cross-species needs.

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