Resolve Gene Symbol

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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds case-insensitivity, return format {hgnc_id, approved_symbol, match_type}, and error behavior (ambiguous returns candidates, not_found redirects). 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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, input/output/error details, and signature. No wasted words; each sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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?

Covers inputs, outputs, and error cases. With 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains behavior. Lacks definition of response_mode verbosity levels, but output schema is absent; still adequate for most agents.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema: explains query parameter accepts symbols/aliases/HGNC ids, and lists response_mode enum values with default 'compact'. However, it does not detail what each verbosity level returns; output schema is absent but description compensates with return fields.

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 resolves any gene symbol or HGNC id to canonical record, specifying input types (current, previous, alias, HGNC id) and output fields. It distinguishes from siblings like resolve_gene_by_xref and resolve_symbols_batch by focusing on symbol/HGNC resolution.

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 lists accepted inputs and mentions error handling (ambiguous_query with candidate list, not_found redirect). However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like search_genes or get_gene, but the sibling list provides context.

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