bc_get_efo_id_by_disease_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool searches OLS and returns a dict with efo_ids array or error message, indicating safe, read-only behavior. But it lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects, which is acceptable for this simple search but not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences and a returns section. It front-loads the primary action and purpose with no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (search, 3 parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers the essential behavior and return format. It mentions error handling. The presence of an output schema likely provides additional details, so the description is sufficient without being verbose.

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?

All parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), but the description adds value by specifying that the search returns EFO/Mondo/HP IDs, which is not in the param descriptions. It frames the purpose of the parameters (e.g., search for disease name) effectively.

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 searches OLS for EFO/Mondo/HP IDs related to a disease name and is used to get EFO IDs for Open Targets queries. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like bc_search_ontology_terms, which might also search for ontology IDs.

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?

It provides context by stating 'Use this to get EFO IDs for Open Targets queries,' implying when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, leaving room for confusion with other search tools.

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