get_disease_literature_occurrences

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already states the operation is read-only, and the description adds no extra behavioral details such as pagination (cursor, size), date filtering, or handling of additional_entity_ids. It merely restates the tool's primary function without enriching the agent's understanding.

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 filler, but it is too sparse to be considered well-structured for a tool with this complexity. It front-loads the action but fails to elaborate, resulting in under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

With 8 parameters, a required EFO ID, and no parameter documentation, the description is grossly inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Even though an output schema exists, the input side is completely unexplained, making successful invocation largely guesswork.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for the 8 parameters. The only potential link is that 'disease' implies efo_id, but it does not explicitly define EFO IDs nor mention the other parameters (size, cursor, months, years, additional_entity_ids), leaving the agent without necessary invocation details.

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 specific verb ('Return') and resource ('literature co-occurrence records'), with the scope 'mentioning a disease' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_drug_literature_occurrences and get_target_literature_occurrences.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or explicitly exclude other tools; the only differentiation comes from the tool name itself.

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