Resolve Gene Symbol

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral details: return fields (hgnc_id, approved_symbol, match_type), error handling for ambiguous and withdrawn queries, and the existence of a response_mode parameter. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences plus a signature line, which is efficient and packs much information. The final signature line is somewhat redundant given the input schema, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded with key behavioral details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple input types, error cases) and the presence of full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers input variants, error handling, return fields, and parameter verbosity. No gaps remain for safe and correct usage.

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 the schema thoroughly describes both parameters. The description adds value by providing concrete examples (e.g., 'BRAF', 'HGNC:1097', 'MLL2', '1100') and clarifying that HGNC id can be with or without prefix. It also mentions the response_mode enum options, enriching beyond 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's purpose: resolving any gene symbol or HGNC id to its canonical record. It lists specific input types (current, previous, alias, HGNC id) and emphasizes case-insensitivity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gene (for known IDs) and search_genes (fuzzy search).

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 explains when to use the tool and provides explicit behavior for edge cases (ambiguous alias returns error with candidates, withdrawn/merged returns not_found with redirect). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to siblings, though the sibling context and error handling subtly guide usage.

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