query_genotypes_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the batch size limit of 200, but does not describe error handling, whether it is read-only, rate limits, or behavior on partial failures. The description is minimal in behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiency benefit. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema and performs a batch lookup of up to 200 items, the description should explain the return format, such as whether it returns a list of genotypes with rsIDs, or error messages for failed lookups. This information is missing, making the tool less predictable for the agent.

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 schema describes the 'rsids' parameter as an array of strings, but the description adds significant context: it is a batch operation for up to 200 rsIDs, and it is more efficient than individual lookups. This goes beyond the schema's technical definition.

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 looks up patient genotypes for multiple rsIDs at once, with a batch limit of 200. It uses specific verb 'look up' and resource 'patient genotypes', and differentiates from the sibling 'query_genotype' by highlighting efficiency for multiple variants.

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 indicates this is more efficient than individual lookups when checking many variants, implying it is the preferred tool for batch operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for a small number of variants, but the sibling tool 'query_genotype' is available as an alternative.

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