Get Disease Curations

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses useful behaviors: the per-submitter breakdown via response_mode, the release-bound nature of the cursor, and the fact that the cursor surfaces as _meta.next_commands[0]. It also describes output semantics (consensus classification, conflict flag).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two specific usage tips. No redundant or filler language; every clause provides value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned (genes with classifications and conflict flags), how to get more detail (response_mode), and how to page (cursor). This is complete for a read-only lookup tool with 5 parameters, especially given annotations cover safety.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'Widen response_mode' gives per-submitter breakdown and that paging uses a release-bound cursor, which clarifies the cursor and response_mode params beyond their schema descriptions.

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 says 'Return all genes asserted for one disease', which is a specific verb+resource+scope, and mentions the output fields (consensus classification, conflict flag). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gene_curations which likely operate per 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 gives clear context: 'for one disease' and offers direction on how to use response_mode and cursor for pagination. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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