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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that outputs are atoms with source and atom_id, and states 'Educational, not diagnostic'. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or behavior when both parameters are provided or empty.

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 structured with an introductory sentence, two clear usage modes, and a closing note about sources. It is reasonably concise, though slightly lengthy. Front-loads the purpose.

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 an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers main functionality and parameter usage. It lacks explicit handling of edge cases (e.g., both parameters filled), but provides enough context for typical queries. The educational disclaimer adds value.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: disease accepts a name or OMIA ID, breed accepts an example. It maps each parameter to specific output fields (e.g., disease returns genes, inheritance; breed returns carrier frequency, confidence tier). Examples are provided.

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 it provides a fused OMIA disease layer for a given disease or breed, listing specific outputs like genes, inheritance, human homolog, and variant pathogenicity grade. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the OMIM/Mondo bridge and breed-specific conditions, which are unique to this tool.

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 giving two modes (disease or breed), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like disease_lookup or breed_summary. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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