get_gene_details

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

The description discloses the return format (JSON with symbol, name, summary, location) but does not discuss side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Given the absence of annotations, it provides basic behavioral context but not deep transparency.

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 concise, with two effective sentences plus clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every part serves a purpose with no unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool's single parameter and the existence of an output schema, the description provides complete context for a retrieval tool: what it does, what input it needs, and what output to expect.

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 description adds meaningful interpretation to the sole parameter 'gene_id' by specifying it is an 'NCBI Gene ID' and suggesting its source ('from search results or known'). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states the action ('Get detailed information'), resource ('a gene'), and method ('by NCBI Gene ID'), making it distinct from sibling tools like search_gene and get_gene_literature.

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 ('from search results or known') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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