gene_enrichment

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions the Enrichr engine and that it returns significant enrichment items, giving some insight into expected behavior. But it omits details like whether it requires network access, rate limits, or if the operation is read-only. Since the description says 'analysis,' it implies non-mutating, but that is not explicit.

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 bilingual, and the English and Chinese portions repeat the same information. This redundancy means not every sentence earns its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, but the repeated content makes it less concise than it could be.

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?

Although an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description fails to explain the parameters' meanings, especially 'library' and 'max_terms.' Given that annotations are absent and schema coverage is nil for parameter descriptions, the definition is incomplete for an agent to confidently construct calls with non-default values.

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 explain parameters. It mentions 'genes' implicitly as 'gene list' and hints at 'library' via GO/KEGG/Reactome, but it does not clarify the 'library' parameter's role or the 'max_terms' parameter at all. The defaults are only in the schema. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.

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 it performs gene ontology and pathway enrichment analysis using the Enrichr engine, and lists what it returns (significant enrichment terms with p-values and overlapping genes). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like kegg_pathway_search, reactome_pathway_search, or gene_go_annotation, all of which might overlap in purpose.

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 a clear use case: 'For functional interpretation of omics / single-cell DEGs,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not, however, mention alternatives or conditions when NOT to use this tool, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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