get_disease_associations

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

No annotations provided. Description adds 'with evidence scores' indicating result contents, but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or response structure. Sufficient for basic understanding but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with key action and resource. Every word carries meaning.

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?

Tool is simple with 2 parameters. Description covers purpose and key output feature (evidence scores). Missing details on response format or error handling, but adequate for basic use.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. Description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'get', resource 'disease associations', and source 'Open Targets'. It also mentions 'evidence scores', specifying additional information provided. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_open_targets' and 'get_gene_diseases'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include many similar get/search tools (e.g., get_gene_diseases, search_open_targets), but description does not contrast or provide context for selection.

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