get_drug_linked_diseases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the kind of diseases included ('indications and mechanisms'), but does not disclose pagination, return structure, or other behavioral details. This is sufficient given the annotation coverage, but not exceptionally rich.

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. It conveys the core purpose and scope efficiently, earning its place without redundant details.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required), has an output schema, and a readOnly annotation. The description covers purpose and scope adequately. However, the unexplained 'fields' parameter and lack of any parameter descriptions prevent a perfect score, though the output schema mitigates the need for return-value documentation.

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; it does not explain the 'fields' parameter at all. The word 'drug' implicitly maps to 'chembl_id', but the optional 'fields' parameter (likely for selecting output fields) remains completely undocumented, leaving a gap for correct invocation.

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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('diseases connected to a drug') with a clear scope ('across indications and mechanisms'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_drug_linked_targets or get_disease_known_drugs by focusing on the drug-to-disease relationship.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve diseases linked to a drug. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope ('across indications and mechanisms') helps an agent infer the use case relative to other drug-focused tools.

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