rgd_gene_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the input format (gene symbol with Brca1/Tp53 examples) and the return contents (gene name, symbol, chromosome location, functional annotation, aliases), which establishes this as a read-style lookup. However, it does not address edge-case behavior: exact vs. partial matching, case sensitivity, what happens for non-rat symbols, or error handling for invalid input.

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 compact and front-loaded: the English sentence states the core operation first, and the Chinese segment adds input format and return-field detail. There is mild redundancy from bilingual repetition, but each sentence earns its place — no filler, no schema echo.

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 present, the description covers the essentials: purpose, input format with examples, and return contents. The output schema handles precise return typing. Minor gaps remain (failure modes, explicit tool-selection guidance against rgd_search/hgnc_gene_symbol), but nothing an agent needs to make a correct call is fundamentally missing.

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% — the symbol property has only a title, no description. The tool description compensates well by naming the parameter's meaning ('输入大鼠基因符号') and giving two concrete real-world examples (Brca1/Tp53). This is meaningful added value beyond the bare schema. It does not specify format constraints, but for a single gene-symbol string the examples largely carry the semantic load.

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+resource statement — 'Get rat gene by gene symbol' — that clearly identifies the operation and its input. The organism qualifier ('rat') distinguishes it from sibling lookups like hgnc_gene_symbol (human), flybase_gene, and wormbase_gene, so an agent can recognize it without opening the schema.

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 implies usage context by stating the tool is '用于大鼠遗传学研究' (for rat genetics research) and specifies the input type (rat gene symbol). However, it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives, even though closely related siblings exist (rgd_search for broader RGD queries, hgnc_gene_symbol for human genes). The context is clear but the exclusion logic is left to inference.

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