Get HGNC Diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool reports status with no side effects and specifies the exact output fields and the fact that it takes no parameters, going beyond annotations.

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 plus a signature line. Extremely concise, with all key information front-loaded. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates all returned fields: built status, release date, gene/withdrawn counts, schema version, built time. This is complete for a diagnostic tool and aligns with the stated use case of confirming freshness or diagnosing errors.

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 no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%). The description explicitly states 'Signature: get_hgnc_diagnostics()' confirming no arguments, which adds clarity beyond the empty 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 clearly states the tool reports local HGNC index status with specific fields (built status, release date, counts, schema version, built time). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on gene lookup and cross-references, not diagnostics.

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 says 'Use this to confirm freshness or diagnose an unavailable-data error', providing clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_server_capabilities, but the use case is well-defined.

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