get_condition_risk_factors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns factors and lists example types, but it does not mention behavior for invalid SNOMED codes, empty results, or the response format. 'Get' implies non-mutation but is not explicit.

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 two sentences and every sentence contributes meaningful information. It front-loads the purpose and then adds useful output content with examples, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is adequate for a one-parameter lookup tool, but there is no output schema and no guidance on edge cases like missing SNOMED codes or conditions without known risk factors. It gives the agent enough to make a baseline call but leaves response-shape expectations and failure behavior unspecified.

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 only parameter snomedCode is already documented with a clear schema description ('SNOMED CT code of the condition'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond confirming the condition relationship.

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 and resource: 'Get risk factors associated with a specific condition.' It includes concrete example factors (family history, skin type, UV exposure), and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_user_risk_factors and assess_risk_from_factors.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_user_risk_factors or assess_risk_from_factors. It implies condition-centric use, but it does not state exclusions, preconditions, or preferred scenarios.

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