query_with_filters

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. It does not state whether the query is read-only, how filters interact (AND/OR), what result format to expect, or any limits or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 sentence, which is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. While it is short, it does not earn its place because it restates the name without adding useful information. Appropriate structure would provide a clear purpose statement and filter rationale.

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 woefully incomplete given the tool's complexity. It does not explain the query scope, how filters are combined, default behavior, or any usage caveats. An agent would have no idea how to construct a proper query or interpret results beyond raw parameter names.

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%, meaning neither the schema nor the description explains any of the 9 parameters. The description does not mention parameter names, types, or semantics. For example, 'q' and 'size' are not defined, and filter behaviors for taxid, chromosome, etc., are unspecified. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 with multiple filters applied' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'query_with_filters'. It fails to specify what entity is being queried (e.g., genes, homologs) or what the filters operate on, providing no meaningful differentiation from sibling tools like query_genes or query_genes_by_interval.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for filtered queries or that simpler tools like query_genes should be used when no filters are needed. There is no exclusionary or alternative context provided.

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