gene_articles

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real value beyond that by spelling out the response envelope and, critically, that per-backend failures arrive in `errors` and never as items inside `results`, plus degradation notes in `warnings`. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious contract an agent needs to avoid misreading partial failures as empty results. No pagination or result-count guidance, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the response contract. Every clause carries information. The trailing '(issue #130)' is internal tracking noise that adds nothing for an agent, a minor blemish.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly shoulders the burden of explaining the return shape, including error and warning semantics. For a one-parameter read tool that is nearly complete; only result volume/pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `symbol` parameter is documented there as an HGNC gene symbol, so the schema does the work. The description adds no format, casing, or multi-symbol guidance beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Find articles about a gene.' An agent can immediately tell this is a gene-scoped article lookup, distinct from a generic article search. It stops short of naming the sibling (article_search) it should be weighed against, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gene-scoped framing implies when to use it — when you have a gene symbol and want literature — but there is no explicit when-to-use rule and no mention of article_search as the alternative for free-text or topic queries. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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