overlap_translation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format might be (especially critical without an output schema).

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 extremely concise (one brief phrase) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The context signals indicate this is a query tool, but the description lacks completeness for effective agent use.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining what 'translation stable ID' means or the significance of different feature types). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Get') and target ('features overlapping a translation'), with the parenthetical '(protein)' clarifying the biological context. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'overlap_region' or 'overlap_id' by focusing specifically on translation features, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'overlap_region' or 'get_variants_for_region'. The description implies it's for protein-related features, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions for tool selection.

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