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

The description discloses important behavioral nuances beyond annotations: evidence_tier values (human_clinical vs computational_prediction), the human-genetics source of OMIM/Orphanet identifiers, and a disclaimer that gene–disease links imply nothing about herbal treatments. This complements the readOnly/idempotent annotations well.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and each clause adds useful information: source, identifiers, evidence tiers, and an important negative statement about herbal implications. No redundant or filler content.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what kind of data will be returned: diseases with evidence tiers and OMIM/Orphanet identifiers. It does not specify output formatting or pagination details, but the limit parameter and evidence-tier explanation provide enough context for an agent to set expectations.

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?

Both parameters are described in the schema with examples: target accepts a gene symbol or SMTT id, and limit controls max results. The description adds context about evidence tiers but does not need to because schema coverage is full; the parameter descriptions are sufficient for correct invocation.

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's purpose: retrieving diseases associated with a protein target/gene in SymMap v2, with OMIM/Orphanet identifiers where applicable. It distinguishes this from sibling SymMap tools by focusing on target–disease associations rather than herbs, ingredients, or symptoms.

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 when to use it by defining the input as a gene/target and the output as associated diseases, and it clarifies evidence tiers. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the scope is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with herb/symptom-focused SymMap tools.

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