Get Gene Curations

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: the pagination mechanism (release-bound truncated cursor), the alternative identification methods, and the grouping logic. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that pack all essential information. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance. No redundant words.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. The description explains the key identification and pagination aspects. It does not elaborate on limit/offset defaults or edge cases, but for a single-gene query tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for gene_symbol and hgnc_id (explaining they identify the gene and exactly one must be passed), for response_mode (explains its effect), and for cursor (explains pagination). It does not explain limit or offset, but covers the most critical ones.

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 action ('return'), the resource ('GenCC gene-disease validity assertions for one gene'), and the output structure ('grouped by disease, each with a consensus classification and conflict flag'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'for one gene' and grouping by disease.

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 provides explicit guidance on identifying the gene using either gene_symbol or hgnc_id ('pass exactly one'), on using response_mode for per-submitter breakdown, and on pagination via cursor. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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