Get Gene Curations

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the description's additional details about grouping, consensus classification, conflict flag, and release-bound cursor pagination add meaningful behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches the agent's understanding of response structure.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, then efficiently specify input identification, response mode tuning, and pagination mechanics. No filler or redundant statements; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the essential return shape (grouped by disease with consensus classification and conflict flag) and pagination behavior. Combined with the schema's parameter details and annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and descriptions in the schema define each parameter, but the tool description adds interpretive value: gene_symbol can be an approved symbol OR HGNC CURIE, response_mode controls the per-submitter breakdown, and cursor is release-bound from _meta.next_commands[0]. This goes beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Return all GenCC gene-disease validity assertions for one gene' and clarifies the grouping and classification output. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_genes_curations by emphasizing a single-gene scope and consensus aggregation.

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 gives operational guidance (identify by gene_symbol, widen response_mode for per-submitter details, page with truncation token) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_genes_curations or get_gene_disease_assertion. The usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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