gene_go_annotation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (GO annotations list with GO ID, aspect, qualifier, evidence), which is useful. However, it omits behavior around limits, aspect filtering, missing IDs, or error cases.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The bilingual second sentence adds the concrete example and output detail, though it partially restates the first sentence. Overall it is efficient and not bloated.

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?

The description provides a usable calling example and output summary, and an output schema exists to cover return details. However, it leaves parameter semantics for limit and aspect undocumented and lacks guidance relative to closely related tools, making it minimally adequate rather than fully complete.

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%, and the description only clarifies gene_product_id with an example. The limit and aspect parameters are not explained at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names and defaults alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get GO annotations for a gene product'), provides a concrete input example (UniProtKB:P04637/TP53), and lists returned fields. It is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like go_term_lookup or gene_enrichment.

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 usage for functional understanding and enrichment analysis, which gives some context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over related siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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