Get Marker Ortholog

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the resolution step (human to mouse first) and listing returned fields. 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, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a signature line. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description lists output fields. Sibling tools are diverse and this is unique. The description is self-contained and complete for a lookup tool.

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% and includes examples. The description adds context about the resolution process and the list of returned fields, providing meaning beyond the schema alone. Baseline 3 is elevated due to this extra detail.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning mouse-human ortholog mapping and cross-references. It lists specific output fields (human symbol, HGNC id, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools (no other tool does ortholog mapping).

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 specifies acceptable inputs (mouse symbol/MGI id or human symbol/HGNC id) and mentions the resolution process. It clearly states the input types, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings. However, among siblings, none are ortholog-specific, so context is clear.

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