ensembl_gene_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds genuinely useful scope context — the GRCh38 assembly and the intended purpose of confirming official IDs/coordinates. It does not, however, reveal behavior on edge cases such as unknown symbols, ambiguous matches, or case sensitivity of the symbol.

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 leading English sentence is appropriately short and front-loaded with the core action, but the two Chinese sentences repeat the same field list (Ensembl ID, chromosome location, biotype, description) verbatim. The second Chinese sentence adds only the purpose phrase, so roughly one sentence is redundant and fails to earn its place.

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 simple two-parameter symbol lookup with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core operation and return fields. However, the `species` parameter is unexplained, there is no usage guidance relative to siblings, and the absence of annotations leaves the safety profile unstated. The gaps are real but bounded given the tool's low complexity.

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 clarifies that `symbol` is the gene symbol used as the lookup key, but it says nothing about `species`, whose default of 'homo_sapiens' appears in the schema alone — leaving an agent to guess whether other species are accepted or how to specify them. One of two parameters is effectively undocumented.

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 names a specific operation — 'Look up gene by symbol in Ensembl' — and enumerates the returned fields (Ensembl ID, chromosome location, biotype, description, GRCh38), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling lookups such as ensembl_homologs or hgnc_gene_symbol, leaving differentiation implicit rather than explicit.

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 Chinese phrase '用于确认官方 ID 与坐标（GRCh38）' ('for confirming official ID and coordinates (GRCh38)') implies a use case: validating gene identifiers and genomic coordinates. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., ensembl_homologs, gene_full_profile, hgnc_gene_symbol) or when not to use it, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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