GeneRIF Functional Statements

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: upstream order is preserved, 'truncated' means later statements cut, and an unknown locus raises a 'typed NotFoundError'. 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 detailed and front-loaded with the main action, but some sentences (e.g., the example HY5 count) are slightly verbose. However, every sentence adds useful information, and the structure is logical. Could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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 complexity (curated statements, ordering, truncation, errors, organism restriction) and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers all necessary behavioral and contextual details. It differentiates well from many sibling tools and handles edge cases (found=false, unknown locus).

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%, but the description adds value beyond schema: it gives an example value for 'locus' (AT5G11260), explains what 'organism' accepts (slug, scientific name, common name, or NCBI taxid), and clarifies the default and limitation (Arabidopsis only). This enriches parameter understanding.

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 states it fetches 'curated GeneRIF functional statements for an Arabidopsis locus from ThaleMine', clearly specifying verb, resource, and source. It distinguishes from siblings 'locus_go_annotations' and 'locus_literature' by explaining that GeneRIFs provide 'dense, directly citable functional context' that those do not.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: when needing 'directly citable functional context' that GO terms and abstracts lack. It provides an example (HY5 with 114 statements) and explains the meaning of 'found=false' and error behavior for unknown loci. It also notes 'ThaleMine supports Arabidopsis only', setting clear scope and restrictions.

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