get_target_homologues

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't mention anything about the return format, potential limitations (e.g., species restrictions), or other traits that would help the agent anticipate behavior.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, and the read-only annotation covers safety. However, the description lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, making it only minimally complete. It adequately states the core action but leaves out important context an agent would need for smooth invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'for a target gene', which weakly implies ensembl_id is a gene identifier, but doesn't specify the format (e.g., Ensembl gene ID pattern) or any expected type details beyond the schema's 'string'. This is minimal added value.

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 'Retrieve' and clearly defines the resource as 'cross-species homologues for a target gene'. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_target_interactions or get_similar_targets, none of which mention homologues.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context. It only states what the tool does, not when or why to select it.

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