query_cadd

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a PHRED-scaled score and interpretation of >20. However, it does not mention the full return structure (e.g., raw score, percentiles), potential errors (if rsid not found), or any side effects (e.g., API calls). Basic disclosure but incomplete.

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, no extraneous information. Front-loaded with action and core interpretation. Every word adds value.

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 simple input and no output schema, the description covers purpose and score interpretation. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid rsid), rate limits, or confirmation that variant exists in dbSNP. Adequate for a straightforward lookup but could be more robust.

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?

Input schema has one parameter (rsid) with schema description 'dbSNP rsID'. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds no additional meaning or format details beyond the schema. Does not specify expected format (e.g., 'rs123' vs '123'). Adequate but no added value.

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?

Description clearly specifies the tool looks up CADD score for a variant, defines the score type (PHRED-scaled) and a meaningful threshold (top 1% deleterious). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_clinvar (clinical significance) and query_alphamissense (missense pathogenicity).

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?

The description implies use when CADD score is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like query_clinvar or query_alphamissense. No exclusion criteria or guidance on limitations (e.g., only works for known dbSNP variants). Adequate but missing explicit context for tool selection.

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