Bulk Gene Analysis

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context about the analysis process, scoring methodology, and return matrix format, which goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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-loads the core action, and provides essential detail on differential mode in the second sentence. No superfluous text.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and complexity of panel analysis, the description covers the main purpose and differential mode. However, it lacks details on output format specification (e.g., matrix structure) and constraints like gene list limits mentioned in the schema.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds high-level context about differential mode and scoring but does not provide additional semantic detail for individual parameters beyond what is in the schema.

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 purpose: analyzing one or two gene panels in parallel and returning a cross-gene comparison matrix. It also distinguishes differential mode with pathway and disease enrichment ranking, which differentiates it from sibling tools like pathway_analysis or get_gene_disease_associations.

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 explains two usage modes (single panel vs differential) and when to use each. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context from sibling tools implies its niche for bulk comparison.

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