gene_full_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool queries multiple databases concurrently ('一次并发返回') and frames itself as cross-validation, which is useful. However, it does not mention partial-failure behavior, rate limits, network dependence, or data freshness across the four external sources.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately lists the concrete output components. The bilingual repetition of the same idea is slightly redundant but does not introduce noise or obscure meaning.

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 an aggregator with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the output sources, and the intended scenario. The main gap is the under-documented `species` parameter and lack of caveats about external-database failure behavior, but an agent can still select and invoke it correctly.

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 does clarify that `symbol` means a gene symbol, but it leaves `species` undocumented except for the schema default `homo_sapiens`. No guidance is given on valid species values or formatting.

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 performs combined multi-database gene analysis, enumerates the exact data sources (Ensembl, UniProt, STRING, PubMed), and says it returns several output categories concurrently. This distinguishes it from single-source siblings like ensembl_gene_lookup and uniprot_annotate.

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 explicitly targets 'project kickoff and functional overview' / '开题调研、蛋白功能概述', which gives an agent a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternative single-database tools for deeper analysis.

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