AraGWAS: GWAS Associations

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the returned data (effect size, minor-allele frequency, molecular effect, phenotype/study) and noting that 'association_count is the true total even when page-capped.' It also warns about OrganismNotSupported. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.).

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?

Two highly informative sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and source, second sentence details output fields and constraints. Structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the source, free nature, organism restriction, output fields, and page-capping caveat. Complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described). The description reinforces the organism default and restriction but does not add new details about the 'locus' parameter beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as description adds marginal value.

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 specifies a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('AraGWAS genome-wide association study hits'), and target ('Arabidopsis locus'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as none of the siblings specifically perform GWAS association retrieval for Arabidopsis.

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 states the tool is 'ARABIDOPSIS-ONLY' and defaults to arabidopsis_thaliana, providing clear context for when to use and what organism to input. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though no sibling tool overlaps in function.

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