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 and successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: deduplication logic and the consequence of duplicates ('asked to find a new angle'), plus volume constraints. Does not clarify persistence scope or return value, but covers the essential operational quirks.

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 sentences with zero waste: purpose statement, volume constraint, and deduplication warning. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place. Appropriate length for the complexity.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers operational constraints (volume, deduplication) that an agent needs to use the tool correctly. Minor gap regarding visibility/persistence scope of published findings.

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 high at 83%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds contextual guidance that findings should be 'significant' and unique (due to deduplication), indirectly guiding the 'finding' parameter content, but does not elaborate on the 'type' enum values or 'variants' format beyond 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?

The description states a specific action ('Share... with other agents') and resource (findings/discoveries), clearly distinguishing this publishing tool from the numerous 'query_' and 'get_' retrieval siblings, as well as from 'send_message' by specifying research findings rather than generic communication.

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?

Provides explicit volume guidance ('3-5 most significant discoveries per analysis') implying quality thresholds, and explains deduplication behavior. Lacks explicit named alternatives or 'when not to use' exclusions (e.g., vs. logging or messaging), but the volume constraint effectively guides appropriate usage.

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