Get Marker Disease Models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about output content (disease models, DO id, name, OMIM ids) and data source, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, meeting expectations without exceeding.

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 plus a concise signature. Front-loaded with purpose, no filler words. Every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains input and output. It could optionally mention pagination or rate limits, but the openWorldHint reduces need. Generally complete for an agent's invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds valuable details beyond schema: clarifies case-insensitivity, synonym support, and alternative human identifier formats (HGNC id). This enhances parameter understanding beyond basic 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 clearly states it returns disease models (Disease Ontology id + name + OMIM ids) from MGI annotations, with specific verb 'Return' and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_marker_phenotypes, so it's not a 5.

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 lists accepted input types (mouse symbol/MGI id or human ortholog) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_marker_phenotypes or search_markers. No explicit when/not-to-use or alternative names.

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