Search Genes

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the search is free-text, relevance-ranked, and nomenclature-only. While annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, the description enriches the understanding of how the tool behaves.

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 concise: two sentences and a signature, with no filler. Key information is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 full input schema coverage and the existence of an output schema (implied by the return fields listed), the description is complete. It covers the tool's scope, constraints, and relationship to siblings.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions the signature with parameter names but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the input schema already defines.

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 performs free-text search over gene symbols, names, aliases, and previous symbols, returning ranked summaries. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like resolve_symbol by noting this tool is for partial name searches.

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 provides explicit guidance: it states there is no disease/phenotype semantics, so queries like 'polycystin kidney' only match if the words appear in nomenclature. It also advises using resolve_symbol for exact lookups, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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