clinvar_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing health-sensitivity and a consent-style gate, but it never states whether the call is read-only, what happens when report_dir is absent, or how findings are scoped to a particular subject — gaps that matter for a health-sensitive data tool.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the payload first, the health-sensitivity restriction second. No filler, no restatement of the name, and the gate is positioned where an agent scanning for constraints will see 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?

The description does sketch the return contents (alleles, confidence, flags), which is needed since no output schema exists. But for a tool with a security-sensitive scope and an undocumented input, it omits where the data comes from, what an empty result means, and how report_dir changes behavior.

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?

The single parameter report_dir has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — not what a report directory is, not whether it defaults to something, not how it affects results. The description therefore leaves the only input entirely undefined.

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?

Names a specific resource and content: ClinVar scan results covering pathogenic / likely-pathogenic alleles carried, plus confidence and flags. An agent can tell this is a variant-interpretation read, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the similarly-named sibling clinvar_watch.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition — 'call only when the user asks about disease risk or carrier status' — which functions as both when-to-use and when-not-to-use. It stops short of naming clinvar_watch or another sibling as the alternative for adjacent questions, so routing between the two ClinVar tools is left to inference.

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