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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the return format (ranked matches with canonical IDs for each entity type) and the scope of the search, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Despite being moderately long, every segment serves a purpose: example phrasings, scope, return values, and workflow guidance. The structure is front-loaded with user intents and ends with actionable next steps, making it dense yet highly informative.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return fields. It covers the search scope, entity types, and ID prefixes, and explains the intended workflow. It omits edge cases like pagination or error handling, but the annotations and schema cover the essential context for a search tool.

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 covers size and entity, but not the required query parameter. The description compensates by explaining query through examples ('what's the Open Targets ID for [X]') and by mapping entity values to target/disease/drug. This adds meaningful context, especially for the undocumented query param.

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 defines the tool as a text search across diseases, drug targets, and drugs in the Open Targets Platform, returning ranked matches with canonical IDs. It distinguishes from sibling detail tools by explicitly positioning it as the first step to find IDs before calling target/disease/drug.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use first to find IDs, then call target/disease/drug for details.' It also offers example user intents ('Find [disease / drug / gene target]'), which clarify when to invoke the tool. This is strong, actionable guidance.

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