Pharmacogenomics Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds the context 'CPIC-style' and 'PGx evidence', which is useful but minimal. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth) are disclosed, but the annotation coverage is adequate.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is concise without being overly terse, but there is room to add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not explain what the output looks like or what 'CPIC-style' entails exactly. More detail on the report structure would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'Drug of interest', 'Optional gene to force into the report'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description offers no extra clarification.

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: 'Summarize CPIC-style pharmacogenomic genes and supporting PGx evidence for a drug.' It uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('pharmacogenomic genes and evidence'), and the mention of 'CPIC-style' distinguishes it from general drug info tools like drug_interaction_checker or drug_safety.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or context for selecting this tool over siblings such as drug_safety, get_drug_targets, or drug_interaction_checker. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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