Genomic-Agent-Discovery

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It successfully discloses the output style ('plain-language explanations') and data source characteristics ('community-curated'), but fails to mention safety properties (read-only), error handling (invalid rsIDs), rate limits, or whether it returns structured data vs free text.

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 two-sentence structure is optimally front-loaded: sentence one defines the core action, sentence two provides essential domain context. No words are wasted, and the density of information (resource type, content style, data provenance) is high.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately compensates by explaining the return value type ('plain-language explanations'). Given the tool's simplicity and clear scope, the description is sufficiently complete, though explicit error behavior would strengthen it.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'rsid' parameter, including a clear example. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 specific action (look up), resource (SNPedia summary), and scope (variant). It effectively distinguishes from technical siblings like query_clinvar or query_cadd by emphasizing 'plain-language explanations' and 'community-curated wiki,' signaling this is for human-readable interpretations rather than clinical or computational data.

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?

While the description characterizes SNPedia as providing 'plain-language explanations' (implying use when interpretable summaries are needed), it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance contrasting it with the 20+ sibling query tools. No alternatives are named, and there are no exclusion criteria or prerequisites stated.

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