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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful interpretive context beyond those hints: it accepts multiple name forms (Chinese, pinyin, Latin, gene symbols, disease names) and cautions that SymMap records associations, not efficacy, which helps agents avoid overclaiming results.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the core action and entity scope, then cover accepted inputs, output purpose, and an important caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema details.

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 search tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides the key operational details an agent needs: entity classes, accepted query forms, output ID families, and a caveat about what SymMap does not assert. Without an output schema, it could have specified the result shape a bit more, but the ID-family mention largely compensates.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining accepted input forms (Chinese characters, pinyin, Latin/English names, gene symbols) and clarifying that the returned IDs are intended as inputs for the relationship tools, which is not stated in 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Resolve a name to...') and a concrete resource (SymMap v2 entity records and ids), enumerating all seven entity classes. It clearly distinguishes itself from relationship-focused sibling tools by noting it returns the IDs 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: before calling SymMap relationship tools, since it returns the SMHB/SMIT/SMTT/SMTS/SMMS/SMSY/SMDE ids those tools take. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the relationship-tool routing is clear enough.

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