find_orthologs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the upstream source (Ensembl) and the shape of the result (identity and relation type), but says nothing about whether the call is read-only (it is), authentication requirements, error behavior for unknown genes, or rate limits.

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-loaded purpose sentence followed by clean Args/Returns structure; nothing is padded. Minor redundancy in restating schema defaults and return values that the output schema already 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?

For a 3-parameter read tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and return semantics. What is missing is workflow guidance (when this beats resolve_gene) and failure/edge-case behavior for unrecognized gene symbols or species.

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 compensate, and it largely does: it explains query accepts either a gene symbol or Ensembl Gene ID with examples for both, and documents both species parameters with their defaults and example values ('mus_musculus', 'danio_rerio'). It stops short of defining the accepted naming convention or the full species list.

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 and resource ('Identify corresponding orthologous genes across species') plus the data source ('via Ensembl'). This is clearly distinct from every sibling (resolve_gene, get_transcripts, get_mouse_gene), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the documented defaults (source homo_sapiens -> target mus_musculus), which telegraphs the typical cross-species lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or naming of alternatives such as resolve_gene or get_mouse_gene.

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