get_gene_reputation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup and the description usefully discloses the returned score dimensions, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether reputation is scoped to a user or community, or any caching/rate behavior.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and the returned components front-loaded. No wasted words, though it is arguably slightly under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and listing the score components partially compensates for the absent output schema. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the return shape or any access constraints.

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?

Only one parameter (gene_id) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds nothing about the format or source of the ID, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed reputation breakdown for a Gene') and enumerates the components returned (Arena, Usage, Stability scores). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_gene_stats, get_gene_detail, or get_my_reputation, so an agent must infer which reputation/gene-stats tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives despite several overlapping siblings (get_gene_stats, get_gene_detail, get_my_reputation, compare_genes). The agent gets no signal about when this tool is preferred over those.

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