get_variant_pharmacogenomics

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic retrieve action. It does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or any constraints. The description is consistent with the annotation, so no contradiction.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and meets the standard for conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is too terse to orient the agent. It lacks any details about the nature of the pharmacogenomic annotations, pagination defaults, or how this tool fits among the many variant-related siblings. The overall context is incomplete for effective tool selection.

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%, meaning the schema provides no explanations for variant_id, page_size, or page_index. The description mentions 'variant' but does not clarify parameter roles or syntax, leaving the agent without necessary semantic information.

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 'Retrieve pharmacogenomic annotations for a variant' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_variant_info or get_drug_pharmacogenomics. It precisely states the action and the subject matter.

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 such as get_variant_evidences or get_drug_pharmacogenomics. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints about appropriate use cases.

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