Resolve Diseases (batch)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral details: partial success with per-item errors, never wholesale failure, and compact per-item signature. No contradictions with annotations.

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 covering purpose, behavior, parameters, limits. High information density with no filler. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return format (orpha_code, name, match_type, ok=false/error details). Combined with rich annotations and schema, the agent has sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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%. The description adds value by explaining queries must be a list of strings (not comma-joined), provides examples, and clarifies response_mode enum with default. This surpasses what the schema alone offers.

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 multiple labels/ORPHAcodes/xrefs in one call, with per-item resolution details. It distinguishes from the single-item resolve_disease and resolve_xref siblings by emphasizing batch capability and partial success behavior.

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 specifies a max of 50 items, partial success behavior, and the response structure. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the batch context is clear. Sibling tools like get_disease_batch and resolve_disease provide alternatives for different use cases.

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