get_gene_go_annotations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that GO annotations are retrieved. It does not disclose required inputs, filtering behavior, or return format, leaving the agent with minimal understanding of side effects or prerequisites.

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 redundancy, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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 this tool has 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is severely inadequate. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of parameter explanations and usage context needed for correct 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%, and the description adds almost no parameter guidance. It mentions 'evidence codes' which loosely maps to the 'evidence_codes' parameter but does not explain 'gene_id' or 'aspect', leaving all parameters underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('GO annotations with evidence codes'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_gene_annotation' (singular) and 'query_genes_by_go_term'. However, the phrase 'with evidence codes' is ambiguous—it could mean the response includes evidence codes or filters by them.

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. The sibling list offers related tools (e.g., 'get_gene_annotation', 'query_genes_by_go_term'), but the description does not mention any exclusions or selection criteria.

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