get_target_subcellular_locations

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals that this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious, simply restating that it returns annotations. No additional details are provided about result cardinality, empty results, or matching semantics, but with the annotation covering safety, the description is adequate.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler. It reads well and is easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present, read-only annotation), the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns and for which kind of entity. However, it lacks any note about the expected ID format or potential limitations, which would make it fully complete. Still, for a straightforward lookup, it covers most of the necessary context.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'ensembl_id' with no description (schema_description_coverage=0%). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, saying only 'for a target.' This does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer that ensembl_id is a gene/product identifier. A brief note on expected ID format or examples would have improved clarity.

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 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'subcellular localisation annotations for a target.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_target_class or get_target_expression, which focus on 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 implies the tool is used to retrieve subcellular localisation annotations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other target-related tools or mention any alternatives/exclusions. The intended usage is fairly clear from the name and context, but explicit guidance is missing.

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