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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read-only sorted list, but does not state whether it mutates data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Behavioral traits are under-communicated.

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 a single, short phrase—efficient and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity. Could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 one parameter and an output schema that is not described, the description fails to explain the output format or pagination. Given the many sibling tools, the agent needs more context to choose this tool for discovery tasks.

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?

The single parameter 'limit' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what limit controls (e.g., number of genes returned). Default value of 50 provides some hint, but the agent is left to guess.

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 clearly states the tool returns top genes by variant count in the atlas, with a discovery aid purpose. It implies ranking and filtering, but does not explicitly say it lists genes. Sibling tools like gene_summary or variant_search provide different functionality, so this is distinguishable.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'discovery aid' is vague and does not exclude other tools. No alternatives mentioned.

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