Genomic-Agent-Discovery

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable context about CPIC table querying and genotype checking at defining positions, but omits critical safety disclosure (read-only vs destructive), error handling for invalid gene symbols, and whether results are cached or real-time.

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 with zero waste. Front-loaded with core action ('Get pharmacogenomic results'), followed by implementation details (CPIC queries, genotype checking). Every clause provides distinct information about data source, content type, or mechanism.

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?

Strong coverage given no output schema: explicitly lists return content (allele definitions, drug recommendations, genotypes) and data source. Deducted one point for missing safety profile (read-only status) which is critical in pharmacogenomic contexts and absent from annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter description. Description adds substantial value by explaining how the gene parameter is used: to query CPIC allele definitions and check patient genotypes at 'defining variant positions'—context not present in the schema.

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?

Specific verb-resource combination ('Get pharmacogenomic results') and explicitly scopes to 'a specific gene', clearly distinguishing from sibling get_all_pharmacogenomics. Details data sources (CPIC tables) and outputs (allele definitions, drug recommendations).

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?

Implies scope limitation (single gene vs comprehensive) which helps differentiate from get_all_pharmacogenomics, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to query_pharmgkb/query_civic alternatives. No mention of prerequisites like patient consent or available genotype data.

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