Search GenCC Diseases

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: harmonized and porter-stemmed matching, ranked ordering, gene/submitter counts, and the release-bound cursor behavior with _meta.next_commands[0]. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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?

Three sentences: first defines purpose and scope, second gives usage context, third explains pagination. Every sentence adds distinct value, no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return format ('ranked diseases with gene/submitter counts') and the key complexity of pagination. It fully addresses the tool's role in resolving free text before downstream curation lookups. Given the search tool's moderate complexity, this is complete.

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%, but the description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond the schema: 'natural-language ok, porter-stemmed' for query, 'release-bound truncated.next_cursor' for cursor, and 'surfaced as _meta.next_commands[0]' for the response. These clarify the expected format and paging mechanics, going beyond the baseline.

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 searches the GenCC disease catalog with specific search modes (natural-language title, MONDO ID, OMIM ID) and distinct output (ranked diseases with counts). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_disease_curations, which satisfies the sibling distinction criterion.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use to resolve free text before get_disease_curations.' It also explains pagination via the release-bound cursor, which tells the agent when and how to page through large result sets. No exclusions are needed because the search scope is well-defined.

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