batch_resolve_genes

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return format ('JSON string containing list of resolved entity results'), which is useful, and the verb 'resolve' suggests a non-mutating lookup. However, it does not disclose behavior for unmatched or ambiguous identifiers, error cases, or any access requirements, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are minimal, each line serving a clear purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter tool, the description provides the essential call information: required input, optional parameter with default, and return format. The main missing piece is guidance on how this tool relates to resolve_gene, and edge-case behavior is not addressed, but overall it is sufficiently complete for basic invocation.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate for documenting the parameters. It does: queries is explained as 'gene symbols or aliases' with concrete examples, and taxon_id is described as 'NCBI Taxonomy ID' with its human default of 9606. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Resolve a list of gene identifiers/aliases in batch.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling resolve_gene by emphasizing batch handling, while also distinguishing it from get_protein_info by focusing on identifier resolution rather than protein details.

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 phrase 'in batch' implies the tool is intended for multiple gene queries, and the plural 'queries' parameter reinforces this. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer batch_resolve_genes over resolve_gene, nor any stated exclusion such as 'for a single gene, use resolve_gene.' The usage context is clear but mostly implied.

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