get_genes_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing important traits like required email for NCBI, handling of invalid IDs, return format, or rate limits. The minimal 'Get' implies a read operation but offers no substantive behavior beyond that.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and object, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 has 6 parameters and no annotation or schema descriptions, this one-sentence description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain how to construct a request, what fields/filter/species do, or what the output schema contains. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of input guidance.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It only references 'multiple genes' (which maps to gene_ids) but ignores email, fields, filter_, species, and dotfield. The description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema's type structure already shows.

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 tool retrieves annotations for multiple genes, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('annotations for multiple genes'). It distinguishes itself from singular tools like get_gene_annotation by emphasizing 'multiple genes' and 'single request', but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar batch tools like query_genes_batch.

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. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without direction on when to select this over sibling tools.

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