disease_getter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the tool provides 'real-time' and 'CURRENT' information, mentions it fetches from a specific source (MyDisease.info), and includes a warning about prerequisites. It doesn't mention rate limits, error behavior, or authentication needs, but covers key operational aspects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then lists what it provides, emphasizes currency, gives usage examples, and ends with sibling distinctions. Some redundancy exists ('real-time' and 'CURRENT' are similar), but overall it's well-structured with minimal waste.

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 has an output schema (so return values don't need explanation), 100% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides excellent context: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, examples, and sibling distinctions. It's complete enough for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 already fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (which explains disease_id_or_name accepts names or IDs). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed disease information from MyDisease.info' with specific resources listed (disease name, synonyms, ontology mappings, phenotypes, database links). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for disease information retrieval, not clinical trials (trial_searcher) or articles (article_searcher).

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 provides explicit guidance: it includes a prerequisite ('Use the 'think' tool FIRST'), clear when-to-use examples (getting definitions, synonyms, IDs), and explicit alternatives for related tasks ('For clinical trials about diseases, use trial_searcher. For articles about diseases, use article_searcher').

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