Get Marker Record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields (name, type, location, ids, ortholog, counts), and mentions the response_mode parameter for verbosity control. No contradictions 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, no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and all essential information is present. The structure efficiently conveys what the tool does and how to use it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the major components of the returned record. It covers query format, response modes, and typical contents. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what if query not found) or pagination, but for a single-record retrieval these are secondary.

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 baseline is 3. The description provides additional context for the 'query' parameter (accepted formats: MGI id, symbol, human ortholog) and shows the signature with default response_mode. This goes beyond the schema descriptions which already cover the basics.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'full MGI marker record', and specifies that it resolves from multiple query types (MGI id, mouse symbol/synonym, human ortholog). It also lists the contents, distinguishing it from sibling tools that return subsets (e.g., get_marker_alleles, get_marker_diseases).

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 implies when to use this tool (to get the full marker record) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools exist for specific aspects, but no contrast is provided. Some guidance on query flexibility is given.

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