get_diseases_batch

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds little behavioral context. It does not mention error handling, batch size limits, input format requirements beyond the schema, or any other operational nuance. For a batch endpoint, critical details like whether invalid IDs are ignored or cause the entire request to fail are omitted.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It contains no filler words or redundant information, and its brevity aligns with the simplicity of the tool. It earns every word.

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?

Given that the output schema is present, the return format is defined elsewhere, but the description fails to provide essential usage context such as why batching is beneficial, how this relates to get_disease_info, or any constraints on the input array. A batch tool should at least hint at the intended use case to avoid misuse.

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 description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter, but it only says 'diseases' without explicitly mapping efo_ids to disease identifiers. The parameter name already conveys that it expects EFO IDs, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema field itself.

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 states the tool retrieves multiple diseases in a single request, which clearly identifies the action (retrieve) and resource (diseases) with a batch modifier. It distinguishes itself from single-disease tools like get_disease_info through the explicit mention of 'multiple' and 'single request,' though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for multiple diseases via 'in a single request,' but does not state when not to use it, nor does it suggest the single-disease counterpart get_disease_info for individual queries. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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