Get Marker Disease Models

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the data source ('MGI's curated DO annotations') and the output includes Disease Ontology id, name, and OMIM ids, which goes beyond 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 sentences: first states purpose and output, second defines input format and signature. Concise, no wasted 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?

Given one parameter with full schema coverage, output schema present, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential aspects. Slight gap: does not mention that the output is a list of disease models, but overall sufficient for a simple query tool.

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 description and examples. The description clarifies input types ('mouse symbol/MGI id or a human ortholog') which repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 'Return the human-mouse disease models associated with a marker...' with specific resources (Disease Ontology id, name, OMIM ids) and source (MGI's curated DO annotations). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on disease models rather than other marker data.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_marker_phenotypes or resolve_marker. Usage is implied by the description (for disease models) but lacks when-not-to-use or direct comparisons.

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