get_disease_known_drugs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds the detail about 'investigational or approved indications,' which narrows the semantics, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, required parameter specifics, or any other non-obvious traits.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no filler. It earns its place and is easy to parse.

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?

While an output schema exists and the purpose is clear, the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool. It fails to mention the free-text query or pagination controls, and it does not position the tool relative to siblings. However, the read-only annotation and output schema fill some gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It only implicitly covers efo_id via 'for a disease,' leaving size, cursor, and free_text_query entirely unexplained.

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 uses a clear verb ('Retrieve'), specifies the resource ('drugs'), and scopes it to a disease with a specific indication status ('investigational or approved'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_target_known_drugs (drugs for a target) or get_drug_linked_diseases (diseases for a drug).

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 implies the intended use (when you need drugs for a disease) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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