Resolve Disease

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context on ambiguous label handling and response_mode, but does not detail error cases like no match.

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 and a signature. However, the signature line is somewhat redundant given the schema. No unnecessary content, but could be slightly tighter.

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 description covers the main resolution behavior and ambiguous case, but lacks explicit handling of no-match scenarios and omits full output structure. Given no output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description largely repeats the schema, adding no new semantic depth beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the tool resolves a disease label, synonym, or ORPHAcode to a canonical Orphanet term, specifying the output fields and handling ambiguous inputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_disease or search_diseases.

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 implicitly indicates usage for resolving disease identifiers, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like resolve_disease_batch or get_disease. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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