get_studies_by_disease

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It doesn't mention parameters like enable_indirect or pagination behavior, which could significantly affect results. The annotation already covers read-only nature, and the description adds no further behavioral context.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It lacks essential details about parameters and behavior, making it too sparse to be helpful for an agent deciding on tool invocation.

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?

Despite having an output schema and a readOnlyHint, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain key behaviors such as indirect matching, pagination, or field selection. The absence of any parameter semantics or usage guidance makes the description insufficient for effective tool selection and use.

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 should compensate, but it only hints at disease_ids via 'linked to one or more diseases.' Other parameters (fields, page_size, enable_indirect) are left unexplained, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 tool's function: 'List studies linked to one or more diseases.' It specifies a verb (list) and a resource (studies) with a scope (by disease). While it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_study_info, the unique combination of studies and diseases makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it does without any context about suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and basic function.

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