variant_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true and openWorldHint:true. The description adds that core data is always returned at the top level, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid IDs. The additional context is minimal.

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 concise with three sentences: first states purpose, second clarifies core data behavior, third gives usage hint. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description partially explains the return structure by listing core fields (id, gene, rsid, significance) but does not describe the format of sections responses. For a tool with 3 parameters and optional sections, more detail on output structure would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaning to the sections parameter by explaining that it's optional and used to request additional data beyond the mandatory core fields. However, the limit parameter is not mentioned, and 67% schema coverage leaves some burden on the description, which it partially fulfills.

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 retrieves detailed variant information with optional sections, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like variant_search and variant_trials by focusing on individual variant details with customizable sections.

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 usage by stating core data is always returned and sections are optional, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like variant_oncokb or variant_trials. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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