get_xrefs_by_name

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. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a safe read, what the return format is (e.g., list of results), pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, avoiding unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'cross-references' are, what the search returns, or behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a search tool with siblings, more context is needed to help the agent use it effectively, making this inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, with both parameters ('species' and 'name') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'cross-references' are or how the search behaves. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Search cross-references by name' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (cross-references) with a specific search criterion (by name). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_xrefs_by_gene' and 'get_xrefs_by_symbol' by specifying the search field, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'cross-references' entails.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_xrefs_by_gene' or 'get_xrefs_by_symbol' for different search criteria, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description alone, leaving the agent to infer context without explicit direction.

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