ATTED-II: Coexpression

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the ATTED-II release is resolved per-organism, and unsupported organisms raise OrganismNotSupported. It also describes the output: locus, Entrez ID, and z-score ranking.

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?

Three sentences, each adding necessary information: action, return format, organism resolution, and pairing hint. No filler or repetition.

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 3 parameters (1 required) with 67% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, supported organisms, error behavior, and integration with a sibling tool. It is fully adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 67% (locus and organism documented). The description adds meaning to top_n by specifying it returns 'top_n neighbors' and clarifies the z-score meaning. This compensation warrants a 4.

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 'Fetch co-expressed gene neighbors from ATTED-II' and specifies the return format (target locus, Entrez ID, z-score). It also explicitly mentions pairing with string_interactions to identify functional partners, distinguishing it from sibling tools like string_interactions itself.

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 clear context by listing supported organisms and noting that unsupported ones (wheat, sorghum, etc.) raise an OrganismNotSupported error. It also hints at use with string_interactions for high-confidence partners. However, it does not suggest alternative tools for unsupported organisms.

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