hgnc_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does state what input forms are accepted and what output fields to expect (approved symbols, names, aliases). However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as case sensitivity, partial matching, result limits, or empty-result handling, which are useful for a search 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 two concise sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the input/output contract follows immediately. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema available, this description is largely complete: it covers purpose, parameter semantics, and high-level output. It could additionally point to when not to use it or mention alternatives, but that gap is relatively minor.

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 schema provides only a property named 'query' with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly defining the acceptable values: a gene symbol such as BRCA1 or a gene name keyword. That is sufficient for the single parameter, though it doesn't describe constraints like case sensitivity 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 opens with a specific action ('Search') and resource ('human gene nomenclature'), and clarifies that the query can be a gene symbol (BRCA1) or a name keyword. It clearly distinguishes the human/HGNC scope from many organism-specific sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives clear conditions for use: when you have a human gene symbol or a gene name keyword. It also states the input format directly. It does not mention exclusions or direct alternatives such as hgnc_gene_symbol, but the context is clear enough that an agent can tell when this tool is appropriate.

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