Search GWAS Catalog

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the data source and scope. It does not describe pagination, result format, or any side effects, but the annotations largely compensate.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the essential information (source and what is retrieved). No extraneous words. Could include a brief note about the optional parameter, but overall efficient.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks details about the return format, data fields, or necessary credentials. Users unfamiliar with the GWAS Catalog may need more context. The example in input schema helps, but the description itself is thin.

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%: both gene_symbol and max_results are described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter information, but the schema already explains them adequately. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves genome-wide significant associations from the NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog for a given gene. It uses specific resource (GWAS Catalog) and outcome (associations), but lacks an explicit verb like 'search' or 'retrieve'. It differentiates from siblings by specifying the data source, but not exhaustively.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_gene_disease_associations or find_protein. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. The context from sibling tool names implies a niche, but explicit guidance is missing.

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