List GenCC Submitters

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds value by specifying the return content (counts for submissions, genes, diseases) and the downstream use with find_curations, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences long, direct, and free of filler. It front-loads the core purpose and examples, then adds a concise usage tip, every sentence earning 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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned data (submitter names with three count types) and provides a contextual use case. No additional information is essential for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (vacuously). As a result, the description carries no responsibility for parameter explanations, and the baseline of 4 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?

Clearly states the tool lists GenCC submitting organizations with their submission, gene, and disease counts, and provides concrete examples (ClinGen, Genomics England PanelApp, Orphanet, etc.). This distinguishes it from the sibling search/curation tools, which focus on querying specific data types.

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 includes a practical usage hint: 'Use submitter titles to filter find_curations.' This indicates when the tool is useful and how it fits into a workflow, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives.

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