get_gene_disease_associations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only status, permission requirements, pagination, or return format. This is a significant gap for a read-like operation.

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 a single sentence with zero fluff, front-loading the essential action and resource. Every word is functional, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It omits explanation of the 'sources' parameter, provides no usage context, and does not give any indication of what data sources are available or how results are scoped. For a 2-parameter tool, this is inadequate for confident tool selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate for parameter documentation. The phrase 'for a gene' implies the role of gene_id, but the 'sources' parameter is completely ignored. No additional meaning or format details are provided, leaving ambiguity about how to use the optional parameter.

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 'Get disease associations for a gene' clearly states the action (get) and resource (disease associations for a gene). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'query_genes_by_disease', which performs the inverse direction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the inverse sibling 'query_genes_by_disease' or any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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