batch_locus_go_annotations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-stage process, error handling (NotFoundError per locus in errors[]), and a cap of 50 loci. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only query tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, with the key information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: batch variant, two-stage process, error handling, and limit. 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 tool's complexity (batch, two-stage, external queries) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main points: process, error handling, and cap. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the expected return structure or referring to the single variant, but it is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the two-stage resolution and error handling, but the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain the loci array, organism, and limit adequately. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 is a batch variant of locus_go_annotations, specifying the two-stage fanout process (UniProt then QuickGO) and per-locus error handling. This distinguishes it from its single-locus sibling and clarifies its function.

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?

It identifies the tool as a batch variant, implying use for multiple loci rather than a single one. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it or suggest alternatives, the context is clear given the sibling tools include the single-locus version.

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