query_genes_by_expression

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a generic query action. It does not mention that the tool accepts optional filters, what it returns, or any limitations, paging behavior, or data source specifics.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, which aids clarity. However, it is under-specified to the point of being generic, offering little structural detail that would help an agent understand the tool's capabilities.

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 six optional parameters, no annotations, and no schema-level descriptions, yet the description gives no context about query semantics or how to construct an expression-based query. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the core functionality remains opaque, especially given the overlapping sibling tools.

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 six parameters, but it only mentions expression patterns generically. Parameter names like tissue and species are self-explanatory, but expression_level and size are not explained, and the description adds no detail about how these parameters interact.

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 'Query genes by expression patterns' uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'by expression patterns' differentiates it from siblings like query_genes_by_disease and query_genes_by_pathway. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes an 'expression pattern' or how it scopes results.

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 such as get_gene_expression_profile or query_genes_by_disease. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage to be inferred solely from the name.

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