get_target_diseases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (diseases, 0.0-1.0 evidence scores, datatype breakdowns) and the read-only nature is implied by 'Fetch', but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or evidence-source details.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded, with the purpose sentence first and Args/Returns sections clearly delineated. Slightly verbose in the Args/Returns restatement but each line earns its place by covering the 0%-coverage schema.

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?

For a 2-parameter read tool with an output schema present, this is nearly complete: it documents both params and even summarizes returns (redundant with the output schema but harmless). The only missing piece is any guidance on selection relative to sibling tools.

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%, so the description must compensate and it does: 'gene' is explained as a symbol or Ensembl Gene ID with concrete examples ('TP53', 'BRAF', 'ENSG00000141510'), and 'limit' is defined as the maximum top associations with its default. Full coverage of both parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) plus a precise resource (evidence-backed therapeutic target-disease associations) and names the source (Open Targets Platform). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_pathways, get_go_term, and get_supporting_publications.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (retrieve disease associations for a given gene), but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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