get_gene_detail

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Get" implies a non-mutating read, and the either/or input requirement is disclosed, but there is no mention of permissions, error behavior for unknown IDs, or result size. Adequate for a simple getter, but thin given zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the input constraint. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and the input precondition. The absence of an output schema is largely compensated by naming phenotype, fitness, and metadata, though not-found behavior and precedence between the two identifiers remain unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the conditional-requirement note inside the schema itself. The description restates the either/or rule but adds no format hints, validation behavior, or precedence when both values are supplied. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get detailed information about a specific Gene") and enumerates the returned content (phenotype, fitness, metadata). It is clearly a detail-fetch tool rather than a list/search tool, though it never names the sibling tools (search_genes, list_local_genes) that would serve the discovery use case.

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 constraint "at least one of gene_id or content_hash must be provided" gives the caller a concrete precondition. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus search_genes or list_local_genes, and no note about what happens if the ID does not resolve. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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