Search GenCC Genes

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context about pagination (release-bound truncated.next_cursor surfaced via _meta.next_commands[0]) and the nature of results (ranked with assertion roll-ups), going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return summary, followed by targeted usage guidance. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the key return fields (diseases, submitters, strongest classification, conflict flag) and provides pagination guidance. It might hint at response_mode effects or offset/cursor interplay, but overall it adequately frames the tool for a five-parameter search operation.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by specifying how to use the cursor ('release-bound truncated.next_cursor surfaced as _meta.next_commands[0]') and clarifies query semantics (approved symbol, partial symbol, or HGNC id), which partially complements the schema.

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 and resource: 'Search the GenCC gene catalog by approved symbol, partial symbol, or HGNC id.' It clearly states what the tool does, what it returns ('ranked genes with assertion roll-ups'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as a free-text resolver before get_gene_curations.

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 explicitly says 'Use to resolve free text before get_gene_curations,' giving a clear when-to-use and an alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when a gene ID is already known), so it lacks full exclusions.

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