Search GenCC Genes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable behavioral details: results are ranked, include assertion roll-ups, conflict flag, and pagination via next_cursor surfaced in meta. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences. First sentence states purpose and input format. Second sentence describes output and usage guidance. No unnecessary 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?

Output schema exists, so return values don't need full description. Covers searching, output summary, usage link to get_gene_curations, and pagination hint. Slight gap on offset parameter role, but overall complete enough.

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 low (20%), but description adds meaning to the query parameter (approved symbol, partial symbol, HGNC id). However, other parameters (limit, cursor, offset) lack any description beyond what's in schema. Partial compensation.

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?

Description starts with clear verb 'Search' and specific resources: 'GenCC gene catalog by approved symbol, partial symbol, or HGNC id.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_gene_curations by noting the return of ranked genes with assertion roll-ups.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use to resolve free text before get_gene_curations.' Also mentions pagination via cursor. Could be improved with explicit when-not-to, but covers usage context well.

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