protein_tissue_expression

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 disclose the data source, input type, and output contents (tissue-specific expression, subcellular localization, classification, disease associations). However, it does not mention limitations such as human-only data coverage or behavior for invalid/missing Ensembl IDs.

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 opening English sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the Chinese portion largely duplicates the same information. The bilingual repetition adds length without adding much new substance, making it adequate but not maximally efficient.

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 tool is simple: one required parameter and an output schema already exists. The description provides the identifier format, data source, and what the result contains, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Remaining gaps, such as error behavior, are minor for this type of lookup tool.

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 parameter name with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying that the parameter is an Ensembl gene ID and giving a concrete example (ENSG00000141510), which is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving Human Protein Atlas tissue expression profiles by Ensembl gene ID, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar-looking siblings such as expression_atlas_gene or gene_full_profile, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 an example Ensembl ID and states the query type, but it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools like expression_atlas_gene.

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