gwas_gene_variants

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description frames the operation as a 'Get' lookup and explicitly states that it returns an rsID list, making the read-only nature and output shape clear. It does not describe default limit effects or no-result behavior, but those are minor for this simple query tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the main operation, while the Chinese expansion adds a concrete example, the output format, and an intended research use. The two sentences have some bilingual overlap but each contributes useful detail.

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 lookup with an output schema, this description covers the tool's purpose, required input format, expected output type, and use case. It does not mention sibling alternatives or explain the limit parameter in depth, but the tool is simple enough that the description is reasonably 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `gene` parameter with a concrete example (TP53) but provides no added meaning for `limit`, which is only represented by its title and default value in the schema. The partial compensation is adequate but incomplete.

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 operation: 'Get GWAS variants associated with a gene,' then specifies the input as a gene symbol and the output as a list of associated variant rsIDs. This gene-centric framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like gwas_variant_associations, which appears variant-centric.

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 portion gives explicit usage context: query by gene symbol such as TP53 and use for gene-variant-disease association research. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, stopping short of a 5.

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