compare_genes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the computational basis (F(g) fitness) and the output shape (side-by-side fitness breakdown), which is genuine context, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, permission/auth needs, limits, or error behavior when an ID is invalid.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose and the return value are front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-oriented comparison tool this is close to sufficient: the description covers what is compared, on what metric, and what comes back. It stops short of noting edge behavior (e.g., invalid/duplicate IDs or whether an aggregate winner is returned), which is a minor gap given the complete schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents gene_ids as an array of 2-5 Gene UUIDs. The description's 'two or more Genes' restates the minimum without adding format, ordering, or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (compare Genes) and names the comparison basis (F(g) fitness metrics), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_gene_detail, get_gene_stats, or get_arena_rankings, leaving the agent to infer why comparison is preferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Compare two or more Genes' signals the multi-gene case, which weakly differentiates it from single-gene tools such as get_gene_detail. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer routing.

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