Full Genomic Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so description adds minimal behavioral context beyond content scope. It does not mention potential data staleness, generation time, or format, but does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second emphasizes comprehensiveness. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with no parameters and well-covered annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks info about output format or how the report is delivered (e.g., text, file), and with many sibling tools, more context on selection could help.

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?

No parameters exist in the input schema, and schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to elaborate on parameters; baseline score of 4 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates a comprehensive genomic report covering medications, disease risks, and traits. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like full_pgx_report and full_risk_report by mentioning 'all three modules' and 'most comprehensive analysis'.

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 use when a full overview is needed, and 'most comprehensive analysis' suggests this is the broadest option among siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool, missing some guidance.

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