get_homology_best

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's function but doesn't reveal critical traits: whether it's read-only or mutative, what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data or raw text), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no 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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly. No fluff or redundancy is present.

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 complexity (a homology matching tool with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'best' means algorithmically, the return format, error cases, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with no structured output or behavioral hints, 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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It implies parameters like 'identifiers' and 'target_species' but doesn't explain their semantics further (e.g., what constitutes a 'best' match or how species IDs are used). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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: 'Get the best homology match for proteins in a target species.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('best homology match'), and scope ('for proteins in a target species'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_homology' (which might return all matches rather than just the best), leaving room for improvement.

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_homology' or 'resolve_proteins', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers. This lack of usage context makes it harder for an AI agent to select the right tool.

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