get_disease_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, ensuring the tool is safe. The description adds context on the 'detail_level' output behavior (summary vs full) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, then an Args section listing parameters. No fluff, every sentence provides necessary information. The structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential input behavior. It could mention that 'disease_id' is a KEGG ID, but that is implied. The existence of an output schema compensates for not describing return values. Slight room for improvement but largely 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'disease_id' with an example ('H00004') and 'detail_level' with its enum options and meanings. This adds significant value beyond the minimal 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get detailed information' and resource 'KEGG disease entry'. While it distinguishes the tool from other 'get_*_info' siblings by specifying 'disease entry', it does not explicitly differentiate them, but the name and context make it clear.

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 provides guidance on using the 'detail_level' parameter with defaults and meanings ('summary' compact, 'full' complete flat-file parse). However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_diseases' or other info tools, nor when not to use it.

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