hgnc_gene_symbol

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 describes the input format and the broad output categories (aliases, chromosomal location, previous symbols), which gives basic transparency, but it does not mention what happens for invalid or deprecated symbols, case sensitivity, or whether only current approved symbols are accepted.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then cleanly separates input requirements and output contents, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema available, the description is largely complete: it states the entity type, the required input format, and the nature of the returned data. It could be slightly stronger by pointing to hgnc_search for cases where the user only has a partial symbol or gene name, but this is a minor gap given the 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?

The input schema only provides a field named 'symbol' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by giving explicit examples ('BRCA1, TP53') and clarifying that the symbol must be an HGNC approved symbol, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('detailed human gene information'), and the exact key ('HGNC approved symbol'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hgnc_search by emphasizing exact-symbol lookup rather than searching, and from rgd_gene_symbol by being human-specific.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when you already have an HGNC approved gene symbol such as BRCA1 or TP53. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the input requirement is specific enough that an agent can infer this is for exact approved-symbol lookup rather than fuzzy or cross-species searching.

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