Get Curations for Many Genes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral information beyond this: unresolvable inputs are returned in an 'unresolved' field and the call still succeeds (partial failure handling), and each result block mirrors get_gene_curations. This is critical for the agent to understand error behavior and response shape.

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 compact and well-structured. It leads with the key differentiator ('Batch form'), then explains inputs, behavior on unresolved items, result structure, and parameter usage—all in three sentences. No redundant or filler content exists; every sentence adds value.

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 that there is no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the result structure ('gene summary + consensus diseases') and partial failure behavior. It is sufficient for the agent to understand tool usage and expectations. However, it relies on the agent knowing what get_gene_curations returns; a bit more detail on the response format could make it fully self-contained.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by framing limit_per_gene as 'cap diseases per gene' and response_mode as 'widen detail', which clarifies their intent more than the schema's bare 'Max diseases returned per gene' and 'Verbosity' labels. It also reinforces the max 20 constraint for genes in a functional context.

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 is the 'batch form of get_gene_curations' and specifies the exact action: 'pass a list of gene symbols or HGNC ids (max 20) and get each gene's disease assertions in one call.' This distinguishes it from the singular sibling tool get_gene_curations and other sibling tools by focusing on batching multiple genes.

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 says this is the batch form of get_gene_curations, which implicitly guides the agent to use it when multiple genes need queries in one call. It also explains how to control output with limit_per_gene and response_mode. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of get_gene_curations when you have more than one gene' or mention alternatives, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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