get_overlapping_ncrnas

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses that gene_symbol is resolved to coordinates via Ensembl (an external dependency and latency/ambiguity source), and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. But it omits what 'overlapping' means (boundary/strand semantics), any result limits or pagination, and species validation behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a scannable either/or constraint and an Args list. The either/or block partially duplicates the chromosome/start/end/gene_symbol entries in Args, which is minor redundancy but reinforces the critical constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are described. For a region-overlap lookup tool this is nearly complete; the remaining gap is the meaning of 'overlapping' and the required-status of species, both of which affect correctness of calls.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all five parameters are documented with examples, including accepted chromosome forms ('1', 'X', 'chr1') and both species naming conventions ('human' vs 'homo_sapiens'). It does not state which parameters are required (species) or the coordinate convention, which the schema alone cannot convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get non-coding RNAs overlapping a genomic region or a specific gene') with an explicit two-mode scope (region vs. gene). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_sequence or query_rnacentral, though it never names those alternatives to reinforce the distinction.

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 'You must provide EITHER chromosome/start/end OR gene_symbol' block is strong invocation guidance that prevents malformed calls. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as query_rnacentral or search_sequence, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the either/or constraint.

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