get_target_alternative_genes

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by stating 'List', indicating a safe read operation. It adds scoping about what is listed (alternate symbols and cross-references) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data source, pagination, or response format. This is acceptable given the readOnlyHint.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose with no redundant words. It is well-structured 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?

With an output schema present and a readOnlyHint, the description is sufficient for a simple one-parameter tool. It explains the main output (alternate symbols and cross-references) and does not need to elaborate return values. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the target gene context, resulting in a small deduction.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarity. The description mentions 'for a target', implying ensembl_id identifies the gene, but does not explicitly state that ensembl_id is an Ensembl gene identifier or provide format details. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' and specifies the resource as 'alternate gene symbols and database cross-references for a target.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_target_info or get_target_homologues, which cover other aspects of target data.

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. It does not mention exclusions or scenarios where other target-related tools would be more appropriate, leaving the agent without usage context.

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