list_supported_biomarkers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns reference data only, not patient data, and reveals the structure (grouped by clinical pillar). This is sufficient for a simple list operation, though it does not detail any edge cases or side effects, which are unlikely here.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and each sentence adds value: the first explains what is listed, the second clarifies the scope and data type. 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the user what the tool does, what information is returned, and what the result is grouped by. The distinction from patient-data tools is also covered, making it sufficient for a low-complexity 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the list contains (biomarkers, units, reference ranges) and how it is organized, which is more than necessary for an empty 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('biomarkers PRISM scores'), with added detail on units, reference ranges, and grouping by clinical pillar. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying 'Reference data only — no patient data', which separates it from tools like analyze_biomarkers.

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 phrase 'Reference data only — no patient data' provides clear context on when to use this tool (for reference lookups, not patient-specific queries). While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the sibling context and this exclusion make the intended use clear.

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