map_cds_to_region

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 'Map' implies a read-only transformation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what happens with invalid inputs, or what format the output takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward mapping operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, plus the existence of similar sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'genomic coordinates' means in practice, how results are returned, or how this differs from related mapping tools. For a tool in a specialized domain with multiple similar alternatives, more context is needed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between 'id' and 'region', provide format examples beyond the schema's single example, or clarify edge cases. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Map' and the resources 'CDS coordinates to genomic coordinates', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'map_cdna_to_region' or 'map_translation_to_region', which appear to perform similar mapping operations 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 'map_cdna_to_region' and 'map_translation_to_region' that likely handle different coordinate types, the absence of usage context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate selection criteria.

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