Search Diseases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description adds value by mentioning exclusion of obsolete terms by default, pagination details (truncated, next_offset), and relevance ranking. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences plus a signature line. Front-loaded with key information: search scope, return format, pagination, obsolete handling. 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?

Given 5 parameters, output schema, and 17 sibling tools, the description covers essential aspects: search scope, return format, pagination, obsolete handling. Could mention that ORPHAcode search is supported (already in examples) and that output schema exists. Still adequate.

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%, baseline 3. Description enhances understanding with query examples (including ORPHAcodes), explains response_mode verbosity levels, and provides the function signature, adding context beyond the schema.

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 Orphanet disease names, synonyms, and definitions with relevance ranking. It lists return fields and pagination, and distinguishes from siblings like find_diseases_by_gene or find_diseases_by_phenotype by specifying the search scope.

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 indicates when to use include_obsolete and provides function signature. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use find_diseases_by_gene vs search_diseases), leaving room for ambiguity.

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