search_ensembl_gene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it performs a search and returns data, without revealing any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other traits. For a read-only search, this is minimal but not misleading; however, it lacks depth.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently states purpose and output, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and return values. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its use, though it could mention data source reliability or versioning.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds that search is by symbol or ID and lists return fields, but this is already inferable from the schema and tool purpose. It provides no additional parameter details beyond what is in the 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'Ensembl for gene information', the input types (gene symbol or Ensembl ID), and the output (location, biotype, description). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the Ensembl source and return fields.

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 usage for retrieving Ensembl gene data but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives like search_ncbi_gene or search_uniprot. Guidance is minimal; context from sibling names suggests alternatives, but the description does not address this.

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