Search Diseases

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds details: relevance-ranked results, exclusion of obsolete terms by default, and pagination with next_offset. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 and well-structured: first sentence explains the search, then return format, then pagination and obsolete handling, then signature. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 search functionality, return fields, pagination, and obsolete behavior. Given the output schema exists, return values are documented. However, it does not explain how response_mode affects verbosity, though this is in the schema.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description provides a signature and lists parameters but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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 it performs full-text search over disease names, synonyms, and definitions, and specifies the output fields including pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search by specific attributes like gene or phenotype.

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 general disease search but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like find_diseases_by_gene or find_diseases_by_phenotype. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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