BAR: Gene Summary

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: the tool is 'keyless' (no API key required) and a Global Core Biodata Resource (2023), and it replaces a previous subscription-gated stub. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states purpose and data sources, second sentence adds scope, access, and replacement context. No wasted words.

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, parameter schema with full coverage, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's purpose, scope, and behavioral traits. It is complete for a read-only summary tool with clear domain constraints.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single 'locus' parameter ('Arabidopsis AGI locus, e.g. AT1G01010'). The description does not add additional parameter semantic detail beyond the schema, but schema already provides sufficient information.

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: fetching a merged summary for an Arabidopsis locus from BAR's ThaleMine and GAIA-aliases, detailing what data is returned (TAIR curator summary, Araport11 description, NCBI Gene ID, cross-DB aliases). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it replaces the old tair_locus_info stub and is Arabidopsis-only.

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 specifies that the tool is for Arabidopsis loci only ('Arabidopsis only') and is for the 'curator-summary use case.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with sibling tools, but provides enough context for appropriate use.

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