Get Disease Disability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns ability categories and severity grades, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations, but it does not detail pagination or data format. Overall adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise with two sentences. The first explains the purpose, and the second provides the function signature. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the signature is redundant with the input schema. 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?

The tool has only two parameters (one required), an output schema, and annotations covering behavioral traits. The description explains what data is returned, which is sufficient given the low complexity. No gaps identified.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning parameters are well-documented. The description repeats the function signature but adds no additional explanation beyond what is in the schema. The mention of 'ability categories affected and severity grades' refers to output, not parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns functional consequence (disability) data for an Orphanet disorder, specifying 'ability categories affected and severity grades.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like get_disease_phenotypes or get_disease_classification.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_disease or get_disease_phenotypes. The description does not include exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection among the 18 sibling tools.

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