query_genes_by_go_term

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at 'evidence filtering' but does not explain defaults, return format, pagination, or any side effects. For a query tool with multiple filters, this is an insufficient level of transparency.

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 wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose. While it is sparse, the brevity is not a structural issue, and it reads as a clean, concise statement.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the one-line description is not sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but input semantics and filtering behavior remain too vague for a tool of this complexity.

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 only indirectly references go_id/go_name via 'GO terms' and evidence_codes via 'evidence filtering'. It provides no clarification for size, aspect, qualifier, or species, nor their defaults. This does not adequately compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Query' plus resource 'genes by GO terms', making the core function clear. The mention of 'evidence filtering' adds a distinguishing behavior beyond the generic name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named siblings like get_gene_go_annotations, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_gene_go_annotations, query_genes, or query_genes_by_expression. It neither states preferred use cases nor when to avoid the tool. The description only restates what the tool does, without contextual direction.

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