get_all_pharmacogenomics

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

No annotations provided, but the description explains the process: retrieves genotypes at key variant positions and derives star alleles using CPIC definitions. It adds behavioral context beyond the empty schema, though it omits explicit read-only or safety statements.

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?

Two sentences, 33 words, directly stating purpose and method with no unnecessary information. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (genotypes and derived star alleles). It covers the main outcome but could mention response format or structure to be fully complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter info. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description provides no extra parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a complete pharmacogenomics panel across all 34 CPIC pharmacogenes, specifying verb 'get' and resource 'pharmacogenomics panel'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_pharmacogenomics' by emphasizing comprehensiveness.

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?

It describes the tool as 'the comprehensive starting point for pharmacogenomic analysis', implying initial use, but does not explicitly compare with sibling 'get_pharmacogenomics' or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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