get_target_genetic_constraint

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

The annotation already provides readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to state that. The description adds the source (gnomAD) and the concept of metrics, but doesn't elaborate on return format or any limitations. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple fetch tool with an output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description is largely complete. However, it omits explicit guidance on parameter semantics and alternative tool selection, which would make it fully robust. Overall, it's sufficient for the intended functionality.

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 does not explain the meaning or format of the ensembl_id parameter. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema description, leaving the agent to infer the mapping.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'genetic constraint metrics (gnomAD)' for a target. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_target_info or get_target_expression by specifying the unique data type.

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 clearly indicates the context: fetching genetic constraint metrics. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the purpose is specific enough that a user would know when to choose this tool. No overlap with siblings is apparent, so the context is clear.

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