get_regulatory_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without mentioning critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy or fluff, earning a top score for brevity and clarity.

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 complexity of genomic data tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 100% description coverage, providing clear details for both parameters (species and region). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'regulatory features' entail or providing examples beyond the schema's region format. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'regulatory features in a genomic region', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., get_variants_for_region, overlap_region) that also operate on genomic regions, missing explicit differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like get_variants_for_region and overlap_region that also handle genomic regions, there is no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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