Get Disease Disability

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description explains that empty results are valid and explicitly marked, adding behavioral nuance about data coverage and response structure.

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 signature, each sentence adds value. No redundant or omitted information. Front-loaded with purpose, then coverage nuance, then signature.

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?

No output schema exists, but description explains return fields (ability categories, severity grades) and how to interpret coverage and count. Covers edge cases (empty results) and response format. Sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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 and examples for both parameters. The description adds only a signature line without new parameter information, so it does not significantly enhance understanding 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'functional consequence (disability) data for an Orphanet disorder', specifying it includes ability categories and severity grades. Differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on a specific data type.

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?

Provides clear guidance on coverage partiality and how to interpret empty results (coverage:'none' vs 'present'), which helps the agent handle non-standard outcomes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when to avoid it.

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