plant_gene_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the data source (Ensembl Plants), the read-only nature ('Look up'), and the returned output fields. However, it does not address exact-match behavior, ambiguity, error handling, or access/rate limits.

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 English description is compact, front-loaded, and well-structured with clear input/output labeling. The trailing Chinese sentence repeats most of the English content, adding mild redundancy for an English-reading agent.

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 available, the description covers purpose, source, input examples, and output fields. Missing exact species identifier formats and explicit sibling routing are minor gaps but do not make the tool unusable.

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 has no property descriptions, but the description compensates with concrete examples: gene symbol formats like AT1G01010/AGL1 and species values like arabidopsis/rice/maize/wheat/soybean. It loses a point because these common-name species examples may not match the exact schema default `arabidopsis_thaliana`, creating potential value-format ambiguity.

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 verb and resource: 'Look up plant gene information via Ensembl Plants.' The plant+Ensembl Plants scope clearly distinguishes it from generic Ensembl lookup siblings, and the example species and gene symbols reinforce the tool's domain.

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 context by specifying that this is for plant gene lookup and lists valid species and symbol examples. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.