BioMCP

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 mentions the API key requirement and where to obtain it, which is valuable context. However, it doesn't disclose other important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs beyond the API key, whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, or response format details. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 with clear sections: purpose statement, bulleted list of retrieved information, authentication requirement, and example use cases. It's appropriately sized at 7 sentences plus a bullet list. Every sentence adds value, though the bullet list could potentially be more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, what information it retrieves, authentication requirements, and example usage. For a read operation with good schema coverage and output schema, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the intervention_id format beyond the basic example, nor does it provide additional context about the api_key parameter. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 information about a specific intervention from NCI' with specific examples of what information is retrieved (e.g., full name, intervention type, FDA approval status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'nci_intervention_searcher' by focusing on retrieving details for a specific intervention rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other getters like 'drug_getter' or 'trial_getter'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool through example usage statements ('Get details about a specific drug', 'Find all trials using a device', 'View combination therapy protocols'). It implies usage for retrieving comprehensive intervention details, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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