Get Disease Prevalence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds specific output fields (prevalence class, geographic area, source reference) but does not introduce additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.

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 two sentences plus a function signature, all front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or extraneous text.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool has two parameters with full schema description, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it could mention potential error cases or more context about prevalence classes.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (term and response_mode) with descriptions and examples. The description repeats parameter names and types without adding new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns prevalence data (prevalence class, geographic area, source reference) for an Orphanet disorder. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_disease or get_disease_phenotypes by specifying the focus on prevalence 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving prevalence data but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_disease or get_disease_phenotypes. No when-not-to-use or preferred context is given.

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