map_translation_to_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the transformation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., invalid coordinates), output format, whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance considerations, or data sources. This is a significant gap 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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place.

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 2 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the tool returns (e.g., genomic coordinates format), error conditions, or usage context. For a coordinate-mapping tool with no structured metadata, this leaves critical gaps for an agent.

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 fully documents both parameters (id and region). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples for 'region' are already in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: mapping protein coordinates to genomic coordinates. It specifies the verb ('map') and the transformation (protein→genomic), which is distinct from sibling tools like map_cdna_to_region or map_cds_to_region that handle other coordinate types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from these siblings beyond the resource name.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid translation ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like overlap_translation or map_assembly. Usage is implied by the name but not explained.

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