gene_drugs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: ranking by max clinical phase then trial-report count, salt-form collapsing, and an envelope response with warnings and structured errors. It also explains how OpenTargets failures and unresolved genes appear in errors[] rather than inline results.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is compact. However, the issue references "(#130, #179)" add internal noise that does not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral context: ranking, salt-form collapsing, and the response envelope with error semantics. It does not describe the fields of individual drug result items, leaving a minor gap in return-value detail.

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 100%, and the single symbol parameter is fully documented in the schema as an HGNC gene symbol. The description does not add meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Find drugs targeting a gene." It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as drug_search, gene_get, or gene_trials.

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 the use case of finding drugs for a gene, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent must infer from the name and sibling list whether to call this versus gene_trials or drug_search.

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