gene_get

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/open-world safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description clears it by disclosing real behavior: response section keys mirror requested section names and legacy storage keys (civic, hpa, clingen, disgenet) never appear. It omits other useful behavior — what happens for an unknown symbol, what limit constrains, and cost/latency of heavy sections like all.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence carries the high-value key-mapping caveat. The mapping sentence is dense with repeated quoted examples and the "legacy storage keys never appear" clause is slightly verbose, but nothing is wasted.

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 sensibly explains the response envelope's key structure, which is the most important return detail. However, for a 4-parameter lookup with a 16-value section enum it should also cover failure modes (invalid/unknown symbol), what limit governs, and how expensive "all" is.

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 75% and symbol/smart are well documented there, but the sections param is described only as "Sections to include". The description adds the missing meaning by mapping section values to the exact response keys returned, which is information the schema does not provide. The limit parameter remains unexplained in both places.

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 ("Get detailed gene information by symbol") with the required key (symbol). It is clearly a single-entity lookup, but it never names the sibling it differs from (gene_search vs gene_get), so an agent must infer the distinction from naming convention alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: "by symbol" suggests you already have a valid HGNC symbol, and the note about legacy storage keys hints at the section-selection workflow. No explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool (gene_search, gene_diseases, gene_drugs) is referenced, even though several siblings cover overlapping data.

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