get_variant_intervals

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, filtering nuances, or empty result handling) beyond what the name and annotation imply, providing little value beyond the structured data.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, object, and scope without any filler. Every word serves a purpose, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 and annotations, the description covers the core purpose but falls short in parameter semantics and usage guidance. It is adequate for a simple tool yet has clear gaps in explaining pagination and how this tool fits among its siblings.

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 implicitly covers 'variant_id' through 'variant', but says nothing about 'page_size' or 'page_index'. The pagination parameters are left unexplained, relying entirely on the schema's defaults and names.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves enhancer-to-gene predictions for a variant, with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('enhancer-to-gene predictions'). It distinguishes itself from other variant tools like get_variant_info or get_variant_evidences by focusing on E2G predictions.

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 intended use is implied by the description and tool name—when you need E2G predictions for a variant—but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Lacks the clear alternative references seen in higher-scoring descriptions.

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