Get Diseases for Gene

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, which fully cover safety and idempotence. The description adds the function signature but no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema provide. It does not contradict 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second provides the signature. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values but only states that diseases are returned. It does not describe the structure, paging behavior (limit/offset), or the effect of response_mode. The open world hint from annotations suggests partial results, but this is not elaborated.

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% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters (gene format, limit, offset, response_mode enum). The description only lists parameter names via the signature, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'Return diseases associated with a gene (symbol or NCBI id)' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_diseases_for_phenotype and get_genes_for_disease by specifying the input type (gene). The inclusion of the function signature adds clarity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_diseases_for_phenotype). It only states what the tool does without context for selection, leaving the agent to infer based on name and purpose.

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