atted_coexpression

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

With no annotations, the description provides moderate transparency: it explains the data source (ATTED-II v5), output fields, and unsupported organisms. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling beyond OrganismNotSupported.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and output format. It is concise but could be slightly tighter, e.g., removing the pairing note if not essential.

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 3-parameter tool with output schema, the description adequately covers usage scope (organisms), output fields, and potential unsupported organisms. It lacks pagination details but the schema handles top_n limits.

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 schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions; the description adds meaning for the undocumented top_n parameter by explaining it controls the number of neighbors. It also clarifies the z-score interpretation, adding value beyond the schema.

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 it fetches co-expressed gene neighbors from ATTED-II for a plant locus, specifying output fields and supported organisms. It distinguishes from batch_atted_coexpression only implicitly, lacking explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage for coexpression queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like batch_atted_coexpression or string_interactions. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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