find_homologues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool never invents confidence values or citations, and that the status is 'candidate_homology' with confidence=None. It also explains how the filters affect results (touching either end). This is strong transparency, though it does not mention performance or output format.

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 a single paragraph but each sentence adds value: the core purpose, the data source and quality caveats, and parameter explanations. It is somewhat dense but well-structured, with the primary purpose front-loaded. No fluff or 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 that an output schema exists (so return format is already defined), the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, the data constraints (54 species, status, confidence), filter semantics, and data integrity guarantees. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without additional clarification.

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 description provides detailed semantics for both parameters: region_id filters to homologies touching that region in either end, and species_id filters to those touching that species. This goes far beyond the bare schema (which only lists names and types) and fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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's function: finding real homologies between already loaded species. It uses a specific verb ('Busca') and a specific resource (homologies), and differentiates from sibling tools like search_region or compare_species by focusing on homology relationships. The mention of 'reales' (real) and 'ya cargadas' (already loaded) adds precision.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (for real homologies among the 54 loaded species) and explains the filtering semantics of both parameters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough to imply when it is appropriate.

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