get_xrefs_by_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, error conditions, or whether this is a simple lookup versus a complex query. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap.

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 that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward lookup tool and gets directly to the point with zero wasted verbiage.

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 read-only lookup tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about when to use it versus siblings, behavioral constraints, and what the output contains. The absence of annotations and output schema means the agent must infer much about how this tool behaves in practice.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation, though the description could have provided context about how these parameters interact or typical usage patterns.

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 action ('Get cross-references') and resource ('for a gene symbol'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_xrefs_by_gene' or 'get_xrefs_by_name', which appear to serve similar cross-referencing functions but with different input types.

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 siblings like 'get_xrefs_by_gene' and 'get_xrefs_by_name' that likely retrieve similar data, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool (symbol-based lookup) from those alternatives, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter names alone.

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