Get Disease Curations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: how to get detailed per-submitter data (response_mode), pagination mechanism (cursor from next_commands), and output structure (consensus + conflict flag). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by critical additional details. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on input semantics and behavioral context. It covers pagination, response modes, and output characteristics. Could elaborate on how to specify disease parameter format (e.g., prefix for MONDO vs OMIM) for full completeness.

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 only 20% (only response_mode described). The description adds context for disease (by id or title) and response_mode, but the other parameters (limit, cursor, offset, disease) are not explained beyond schema. With low coverage, more parameter guidance would be beneficial.

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 tool returns genes asserted for a disease, with consensus classification and conflict flag. It specifies identification by MONDO/OMIM id or title, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_gene_curations which focus on a single gene.

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 widening response_mode for per-submitter breakdown and pagination via cursor. It implicitly differentiates from siblings by focusing on disease-level assertions, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.

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