search_clinvar

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with variant records including significance and conditions) and the limit range (1-50). This is sufficient for a read-only search tool, though it could mention pagination or error handling.

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 a clear structure: title, use cases, arguments, and returns. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return, and use cases. It differentiates from siblings via 'ClinVar', though omits details about error responses or database scope.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains query as 'Gene name, variant, or disease condition' and limit as 'Maximum results (1-50)', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'Search ClinVar for clinical variants,' specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_gene or search_compound by focusing on ClinVar, a distinct database for clinical variants.

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 lists relevant use cases (e.g., look up clinical significance, find variants associated with diseases) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide exclusion criteria. It implies use for clinical variant information but lacks direct guidance on when not to use this tool.

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