analyze_enrichment

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, indicating the tool is safe to repeat. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the core purpose, such as side effects, performance implications, or data modification risks. It does not contradict 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 concise with three sentences that front-load the purpose. It efficiently conveys the action and key requirement, though additional details could be included without compromising brevity.

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 (2 parameters with a rich nested object), the description is minimal. It omits what the tool returns (despite having an output schema) and does not explain when to use this analysis type. The description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 description coverage is 0% for top-level properties, but the $defs has a description for EnrichmentParameters. The description clarifies that 'species' is required and points to EnrichmentParameters for details, adding some meaning. However, it does not explain data_id or other params beyond a brief label, leaving gaps.

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 'Perform gene set enrichment analysis', specifying the verb and resource. While this is unambiguous, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_cell_communication or analyze_trajectory_data, which have distinct purposes.

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 mentions that 'species must be specified' and references EnrichmentParameters for methods and gene_set_database options, providing basic usage hints. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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