get_gene_annotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed annotation' without explaining what 'detailed' includes, how results are structured, what happens with default parameters like dotfield, or whether certain species are supported. This adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is easy to scan and understand at a glance, though it lacks informative detail. This is appropriately concise but not fully specified.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and many sibling annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain the general versus specialized nature, parameter semantics, or selection criteria. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description still fails to provide enough context for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 4 parameters. It only implicitly covers gene_id via 'by ID', leaving fields, species, and dotfield entirely unexplained. No meaning is added to these parameters, which are not self-explanatory (especially dotfield).

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 the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed annotation for a specific gene by ID', clearly indicating what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this general annotation tool from specialized siblings like get_gene_go_annotations or get_gene_pathways, making the scope somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_gene_go_annotations or get_gene_pathways. There is no mention of preferred use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description solely states what it does without contextualizing its place among the sibling tools.

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