query_genes_by_disease

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'find genes associated with diseases,' implying a read operation, but does not mention default parameters (size=10, species='human'), how 'source' is used, or that disease_id and disease_name are alternative identifiers. This leaves key behaviors undisclosed.

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 concise sentence with no redundant wording, making it easy to parse. It lacks fluff, and the structure is clear, though the minimal content contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 incomplete for a tool with five optional parameters and no annotations. It does not explain that a disease identifier is likely needed, how filtering works, or what 'associated' means in terms of evidence or confidence. The text gives insufficient context for effective 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?

The description provides zero information about the five parameters (size, source, species, disease_id, disease_name). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining parameter roles, defaults, or relationships, making it impossible for an agent to understand parameter semantics from the description alone.

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 'finds genes associated with diseases,' identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'get_gene_disease_associations,' and lacks detail on query modes (e.g., by disease name or ID).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_gene_disease_associations' or 'query_genes_by_chemical.' There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or examples, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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