Search the canine disease catalogue by free text -> ranked candidates [{omia_id, disease, url, score}]. Use before disease_lookup when the exact name is unknown. Dog-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses output format (ranked candidates with fields omia_id, disease, url, score) and scope. Does not mention side effects, but as a search tool, behavioral transparency is adequate.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with main purpose, followed by usage guidance and scope. No wasted words.
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 2 parameters, output schema present, and sibling tools, the description is largely complete. It specifies the output structure and usage context. Could mention behavior for empty query or error cases, but not critical for a basic 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description hints at 'free text' for query parameter and implies limit controls ranking size. However, it does not explicitly explain the limit parameter or its default value. Only minimal additional meaning beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states it searches the canine disease catalogue by free text, returning ranked candidates with specific fields. Differentiates from disease_lookup by advising 'Use before disease_lookup when the exact name is unknown.'
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?
Explicit guidance: 'Use before disease_lookup when the exact name is unknown.' Also specifies scope 'Dog-only', indicating the tool is limited to canine diseases. Provides clear context for when to use this tool vs. alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes, but some overlap exists between disease-related tools (disease_lookup vs disease_links) and between ask and ask_the_graph. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might still misselect.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (ask, search_diseases), others use noun_noun (breed_similarity, disease_bridge), and some use descriptive phrases. No consistent convention observed.
18 tools is well-scoped for a canine genetics knowledge base. Each tool serves a distinct function covering breed, disease, variant, and query capabilities without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers all major aspects of the domain: breed profiles, disease lookup with links, variant querying, semantic search, and metadata. No obvious gaps for the stated educational purpose.
