Get Curations for Many Diseases

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description need only add context. It adds valuable behavior: unresolvable inputs are collected in `unresolved` without failing the call, and each result block mirrors the singular tool's format. This is useful partial-failure semantics that annotations don't convey.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: definition, error handling, and result/parameter summary. No filler; front-loaded with the key 'batch form' concept.

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?

The description covers input format, max count, unresolved behavior, result block structure, and parameter effects. It relies on the sibling tool's documentation for detailed result shape, which is acceptable given the available annotations and schema. No output schema exists, but the description hints at the content (disease summary + consensus genes) adequately.

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 100%, with each parameter described in the schema (max 20, enum values, 1-200 range). The description adds minor reinforcement by mentioning limit_per_disease and response_mode effects, but it doesn't add new syntax or format details beyond the 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 explicitly labels itself as the 'batch form of get_disease_curations' and states it takes a list of disease ids/titles to retrieve gene assertions in one call. This clearly differentiates it from sibling get_disease_curations and other tools.

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 identifies usage context (batch queries) by calling itself a batch form and specifying a list of up to 20 diseases. It implies this is for multiple diseases but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools, though referencing the singular sibling provides a comparison.

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