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

With no annotations, the description fully details the tool's behavior: it returns mode of inheritance, causal genes, curated description, phenotype terms, human analog, evidence, and molecular links when available. It also specifies the data source (OMIA) and that it returns a sniff.world URL, plus the educational disclaimer.

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 dense but efficient, covering many aspects in one sentence. It is front-loaded with the core mapping and lists output components. Could be slightly more structured, but is concise given the complexity.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, yet it does list them. It also adds context about scope (Dog-only) and purpose (Educational, not diagnostic), making it complete.

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 sole parameter 'disease' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds full semantics by clarifying it accepts a disease name or OMIA id, which is sufficient for correct use.

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 that the tool maps a canine inherited disease (by name or OMIA id) to a detailed clinical record, specifying the output components. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_diseases' by noting that tool is for fuzzy candidates.

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?

Explicitly says 'For fuzzy candidates use search_diseases', providing a clear alternative. Also notes 'Dog-only. Educational, not diagnostic.' which sets proper expectations for when to use this tool.

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