biothings_get_gene_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return structure (stats, fields, index, version) and clarifies it is metadata, not gene data. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects, leaving some gaps.

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: a concise first line, a bold warning for clarification, and a bullet-pointed list of returned information. 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?

For a metadata tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return values adequately. However, it lacks explanation of the email parameter and does not mention any limitations or when this tool is preferred over other sibling tools.

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 has 1 parameter (email) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention the email parameter at all, failing to explain its purpose or semantics. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 it retrieves MyGene.info database metadata including stats and fields, and explicitly distinguishes this from retrieving specific gene data. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'database metadata' are specific, and the description highlights that it is NOT for specific genes, effectively differentiating it from sibling 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 explicitly states 'Use this tool ONLY to understand the database itself' and 'It CANNOT be used to find or retrieve data for any particular gene.' This provides strong guidance on when to use and when not, but it does not name specific alternative tools for gene data retrieval, which would improve clarity.

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