nci_disease_searcher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this requires an NCI API key (including where to obtain it), describes what the vocabulary provides (official terminology, synonyms, classifications, codes), and gives clear usage examples. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication errors, or pagination behavior beyond what's in the schema.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides differentiating information, key features, authentication requirements, usage examples, and final guidance. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the bulleted list of vocabulary features could be streamlined).

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 complexity (searching a specialized medical vocabulary with authentication requirements), the description provides excellent context. It explains the specific domain (NCI cancer vocabulary), differentiates from alternatives, lists key features, provides authentication guidance, gives concrete examples, and references the sibling tool. With an output schema present, it appropriately doesn't explain return values.

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 documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It provides general context about searching for cancer conditions but no additional parameter semantics. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 searches NCI's controlled vocabulary of cancer conditions, specifying the exact resource (NCI's curated database) and distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'disease_getter' which uses MyDisease.info. The opening sentence provides a specific verb ('Search') and resource, while subsequent sentences elaborate on what makes this vocabulary unique.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states 'This is different from the general disease_getter tool which uses MyDisease.info' and later reinforces 'For general disease information, use the disease_getter tool.' It also provides concrete example use cases and specifies this is 'specifically for NCI's cancer disease vocabulary.'

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