Synthesis: Homolog Search

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context: it runs BLAST and resolves UniProt-shaped accessions, and handles non-UniProt subjects by returning null. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences, minimal waste. However, 'Synthesis: one-call equivalent of the find_homologs prompt' is jargon that may confuse.

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 output schema exists, return values are defined. Description mentions output structure. Tool complexity is moderate (3 params, 1 required). Missing parameter details lower it slightly.

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% (only 'sequence' described). Description does not explain 'top_n' or 'program' beyond defaults. With low coverage, description should compensate but does not.

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 runs BLAST then resolves UniProt accessions, returning ranked hits. It distinguishes from siblings like blast_sequence (BLAST only) and batch_gramene_homologs (batch homolog search).

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 implies the tool is a 'one-call equivalent of the find_homologs prompt' but does not explicitly list when to use vs alternatives or when to avoid.

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