togovar_search_gene

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, disclosing the endpoint's loose token matching, lack of relevance order, client-side re-ranking, match_type values, and false-positive risk. It also explains the symbol/name echo behavior and the absence of approved-vs-alias status, giving the agent actionable behavioral expectations.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, then each subsequent sentence earns its place by explaining workflow placement, matching quirks, and result interpretation. Despite being detailed, it is free of filler and tightly organized around helping the agent avoid a real failure mode.

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?

For a two-step lookup tool with an output schema and complete parameter schema, the description is fully complete: it covers purpose, input semantics, workflow linkage, output field interpretation, and caveats. Nothing important is left unexplained for safe invocation.

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 input schema already covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful query semantics: loose token matching, exact/prefix/word/fuzzy re-ranking, and the significance of match_type. The limit parameter is not expanded beyond the schema, but the added query behavior justifies a slightly higher score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a human gene symbol/alias to its HGNC ID for variant search.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like togovar_search_disease and togovar_search_variant by framing it as the gene-resolution step for the variant workflow.

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 explicitly positions this as 'the FIRST step of the two-step variant workflow' and states that the returned hgnc_id is what search_variant takes as gene_hgnc_id. It also gives strong when-to-use caution: check match_type and do not blindly feed the first hgnc_id downstream unless the top hit is exact.

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