Synthesis: Consensus Homologs

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds substantial detail: resolving UniProt + FASTA, parallel execution, deduplication by normalized locus token, and the exact scoring formula with per-source identity contributions. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail about sources, algorithm, and scoring. No wasted words or redundant repetition of the schema.

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?

The tool is complex, and the description covers the pipeline, scoring, and deduplication. The output schema handles return-value documentation. However, it does not mention the role of top_n or possible caveats when sources disagree, leaving a modest completeness gap.

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 documentation covers only the organism parameter (33% coverage). The description adds meaning for locus by explaining it is resolved to UniProt + FASTA and used in normalized locus tokens, but it does not explain top_n or clarify how many results are returned. This partial compensation leaves a clear gap.

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 a specific purpose: 'cross-source homology consensus' combining Gramene and NCBI BLAST with a defined scoring method. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gramene_homologs and blast_sequence by emphasizing the synthesis/deduplication behavior.

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 strongly implies when to use this tool: when a cross-source consensus of homology calls is needed rather than a single-source result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give 'when-not-to-use' guidance, but the synthesis framing provides clear usage context.

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