query_homologous_genes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'find', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any specific behaviors such as whether it supports multiple homology types, the effect of the 'size' parameter, or any potential limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is arguably under-specified, which slightly reduces the structural quality, but for conciseness alone it earns a high score.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too thin to be contextually complete. It lacks essential information about when to choose this tool over siblings, does not explain the 'homology_type' parameter or its default, and provides no behavioral context. The tool has 4 parameters and meaningful complexity, so a more detailed description is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to add any meaning to the parameters. It does not mention 'gene_symbol', 'species_list', 'size', or 'homology_type', nor does it explain what these parameters do. The description is entirely disconnected from the parameter schema, providing no semantic bridge for the agent.

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 'Find homologous genes across species' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('homologous genes'). It is understandable but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_gene_orthologs', which likely has overlapping functionality.

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_orthologs' or 'query_genes'. It does not mention contextual scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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