Genomic-Agent-Discovery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adds valuable context about internal behavior (retrieves genotypes at 'key defining variant positions' and performs CPIC allele lookup to derive star alleles), but lacks disclosure on performance characteristics, idempotency, or error conditions.

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 well-structured sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 establishes scope (all 34 genes), sentence 2 explains mechanism (genotype retrieval and allele derivation), and sentence 3 provides usage positioning (starting point). Information is front-loaded and dense.

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?

Given the complex domain (pharmacogenomics), no output schema, and zero annotations, the description adequately explains the conceptual return value (star alleles, genotypes) and scope. It could be improved by mentioning output structure or payload size implications given the 'all 34 genes' scope.

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. Per the scoring rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states it retrieves a 'complete pharmacogenomics panel across all 34 CPIC pharmacogenes' and derives 'star alleles'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'get_pharmacogenomics' by emphasizing 'complete', 'all 34', and 'comprehensive' scope.

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 positions the tool as 'the comprehensive starting point for pharmacogenomic analysis', providing clear context for when to use it (initial broad screening). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'get_pharmacogenomics' for targeted single-gene queries.

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