Genomic-Agent-Discovery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the external data source (DisGeNET) and ranking behavior (association score). It implies read-only behavior via 'Find' and 'Returns', though it omits error handling or rate limit details.

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: sentence 1 states core function and data source, sentence 2 provides usage context, and sentence 3 describes output ordering. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 single-parameter query tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral contract: input (disease), process (DisGeNET lookup), and output (ranked genes). It could improve by describing the return structure (e.g., gene symbols vs. IDs) or empty-result behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description does not explicitly discuss the 'disease' parameter, but the schema fully documents it with examples ('breast cancer', 'diabetes'), making additional description unnecessary.

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 finds genes associated with diseases using DisGeNET, providing specific verb (Find), resource (genes), and distinguishing the data source. It also clarifies the output is ranked by association score, differentiating it from siblings like query_gene.

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 clear usage context ('Useful to discover which genes to investigate for a particular health concern'), establishing when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit contrast with alternatives like query_gene (gene-centric lookup) or query_hpo (phenotype-based).

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