get_gene_info

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the source (Ensembl) and that it retrieves gene details and coordinates, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential issues like rate limits, authentication, or behavior for invalid gene symbols. The presence of an output schema covers return format, but other behavioral traits remain unspecified.

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 brief and stays on point: one sentence for purpose and a short list of parameters. All text serves a purpose with no filler.

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 read-only lookup with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential function and parameter meanings. It does not address usage alternatives or edge cases, but given the low complexity and abundant schema information, it is adequately complete.

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 schema provides only types and defaults with no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: gene_symbol is the gene name with an example, and species is the species name with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though species could use an example or valid values.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('look up') and a resource ('Ensembl'), and mentions both gene details and genomic coordinates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on literature, protein structure, and ChEMBL molecules.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings, but the purpose is distinct and inferable from the name and description. No exclusions are provided, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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