search_gene

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return format as 'JSON with gene records including symbols, names, locations' and specifies argument details like limit range (1-50). However, it does not disclose potential rate limits or behavior when no results are found, but for a search tool, this is acceptable.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose sentence. It uses a clear structure with 'USE CASES', 'Args', and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 that an output schema exists (reducing the need to detail return values), the description adequately covers use cases, parameter explanations, and overall behavior. Minor gaps like pagination or error handling are not critical for a search tool of moderate complexity.

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 adds meaning by explaining query as 'Gene name, symbol, or function keyword', organism with examples ('human', 'Homo sapiens', 'mouse'), and limit as 'Maximum results (1-50)'. This provides useful context beyond the schema's bare types.

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 states 'Search NCBI Gene database for gene information' with a clear verb and resource. Use cases list specific actions like looking up gene function, aliases, and location, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_gene_details (which is for retrieving details of a known gene).

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 provides a list of use cases that imply when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it does not mention that get_gene_details should be used for a specific known gene symbol rather than searching.

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