search_variants

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: returns at most 6 matches, pagination/limit parameters are ignored, and the nature of gene-name query results (adjacent-position slice, not pathogenic landscape). It also warns about inferring pathogenic landscape from limited rows.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose and limit, followed by bullet-like specifics for query types, and warnings. Every sentence adds value without 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 the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It fully covers behavior, limitations, and usage context. For a single-parameter search tool, it is highly complete.

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 provides no description for the single 'query' parameter (0% schema description coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining that the query must be one of three exact types (gene name, rsID, ClinVar variation ID) with examples, and explicitly what not to do.

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 the tool performs 'autocomplete-style variant lookup' in the EVEE database, specifies the exact query types (gene name, rsID, ClinVar ID), and notes it returns up to 6 matches. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by indicating it is the starting point for finding variant IDs for other tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (starting point for finding variant IDs) and when-not-to (do not combine query types, do not add extra words like 'pathogenic'). It also warns that gene-name queries do not return top-pathogenicity variants and advises using rsID or ClinVar ID for specific variants.

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