get_gene_variants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source (ClinVar and other sources), which adds some context, but fails to disclose potential side effects, read-only nature, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. It is not misleading, but it is minimally informative.

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 that is concise and readable. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and a rich context, so it sacrifices usefulness for brevity. It is not overly verbose but fails to include critical parameter details.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are likely covered there. However, the description does not explain what 'variants' are, what filters (variant_type, clinical_significance) can be applied, or what 'other sources' are. It is incomplete for a tool embedded in a large family of query functions, lacking distinction from and relation 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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention or explain any of the three parameters (gene_id, variant_type, clinical_significance). The agent is left without any semantic guidance beyond the bare schema, which lists no descriptions or enums.

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 action (Get), the resource (variants), and the data source (ClinVar and other sources). This is a specific verb+resource combination that is distinct from any sibling tool, which all focus on other biological entities and relationships.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling query tools, the lack of explicit context or exclusions makes it unclear whether this is the right tool for a given task beyond the implied purpose of retrieving variants.

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