athena_antibody_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the ranking dimensions but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what constitutes a 'matching' variant, or the output format. The ranking nature suggests a safe read operation, but the transparency is partial.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It begins with the verb 'Rank' and the resource, making it extremely concise and efficient.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, five parameters, and zero parameter documentation, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to explain the required input 'event', optional filters like 'tags', 'scope', 'threshold', and 'limit', and does not describe the expected output, making correct invocation nearly impossible for an agent.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (tags, event, limit, scope, threshold). The ranking criteria are not mapped to these parameters, leaving the agent without insight into how to supply inputs correctly.

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 uses a specific verb 'Rank' and specifies the resource 'matching antibody variants' along with the ranking criteria (semantic match, empirical reliability, status, expiry). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_failure_antibody_match or athena_antibody_evolve, which focus on matching or evolving rather than ranking.

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 the tool is for ranking variants, and the ranking criteria give clear context for its use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full guidance.

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