get_disease_associated_targets

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only nature. The description adds that the output includes evidence scores, which is useful but does not disclose pagination behavior, default parameters, or any edge cases. It does not contradict the annotation, but also does not add substantial behavioral context beyond what the schema and annotations imply.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: 'List targets associated with a disease, including evidence scores.' It is concise and immediately clear about the core function.

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?

For a list operation with four parameters and an output schema, the description gives the essential purpose but omits details like how to use page_size/page_index, what 'fields' controls, and any output structure nuances. It is adequate as a minimal description but not rich enough to be fully self-sufficient, especially given the lack of parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters (efo_id, fields, page_size, page_index). It only hints that a disease identifier is needed (efo_id) and mentions evidence scores, but does not explain the 'fields' parameter, pagination defaults, or value formats. This is insufficient for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('targets'), and the context ('associated with a disease'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_disease_info (disease info) and get_target_associated_diseases (reverse relationship). Including 'evidence scores' adds specific output detail.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_target_associated_diseases exists for the reverse lookup, nor does it provide prerequisites (e.g., needing an EFO ID). The usage context is only implied by the verb and resource.

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