consensus_homologs

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the multi-step process: sequence resolution, parallel homology calls, deduplication, and scoring formula. It is transparent about the algorithm's behavior.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured as a single paragraph, efficiently covering the synthesis approach without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the synthesis logic. It could mention output format, but output schema covers that.

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 only 33%. The description does not add meaning to 'locus' or 'top_n' beyond the schema. It explains the tool's process but not how parameters influence results.

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?

Description clearly states it produces a cross-source homology consensus by resolving sequences and running Gramene and NCBI BLAST in parallel, then deduping and scoring. This is distinct from sibling tools like gramene_homologs or blast_sequence.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for comprehensive homology searches, but does not state conditions or exclusions.

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