PANTHER: Protein Family

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, not destructive. Description adds that it is free, no key, returns found=false when unclassifiable, and sources from pantherdb.org. Adds behavioral context beyond 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 efficient sentences that front-load the action and output, then add context on usage. 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 complexity (multiple output types, 2 parameters, 12 organisms), the description covers all key aspects: data returned, behavior when no classification, source, default organism, and complementary relationship to siblings.

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 description adds concrete examples for locus (e.g., AT1G01060) and explains organism accepts canonical slug, scientific/common name, or NCBI taxid. Adds value beyond 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?

Clearly states it fetches PANTHER classification for a locus, listing returns (family/subfamily IDs/names, GO terms, protein class, pathways). Distinguishes itself from sequence-homology tools (gramene_homologs/consensus_homologs) by offering an evolutionary-family view.

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?

Explicitly says it complements sequence-homology tools, implying when to use. Specifies it works for all 12 organisms and defaults to arabidopsis_thaliana. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but the complementary statement provides guidance.

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