bar_aiv_interactions

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that rice requires MSU format, the 'kind' field discriminates response shape, and unsupported organisms raise an error. It does not mention side effects, but as a fetch tool, none are expected.

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 front-loaded with purpose and packs substantial detail into three sentences. It could be slightly more concise, but the information density is justified given the tool's complexity.

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 and the tool's complexity (dual response shapes, organism-specific constraints), the description is comprehensive. It covers dispatch logic, input constraints, and response discrimination, making it complete for effective tool invocation.

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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the flexible organism input (slug, name, taxid) and the locus format requirements. It also clarifies the response structure based on the 'kind' field.

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 fetches BAR AIV interactions for Arabidopsis or rice loci, with distinct response types for each organism. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the data source and supported organisms.

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 on when to use the tool (for Arabidopsis or rice loci) and what input format is required (MSU for rice). It implicitly excludes other organisms by stating only two are supported, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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