get_target_associated_diseases

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that results include association scores, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, field selection effects, or other operational traits. Given the annotation covers safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the main verb and clearly states the core action and result. This is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Although an output schema and readOnly annotation exist, the description lacks usage guidelines and parameter semantics. With four parameters and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal to allow an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in all circumstances. It does not cover pagination, field selection, or how it differs from similar target-disease endpoints.

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 for the four parameters. It does not explain ensembl_id, fields, page_size, or page_index, nor does it map them to the concept of 'target'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 names the resource 'diseases linked to a target', plus mentions 'association scores'. This clearly communicates the primary function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_target_disease_evidence or get_disease_associated_targets, so it falls short of a 5.

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 does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with sibling tools such as get_target_disease_evidence or get_disease_associated_targets. There is no 'when to use' statement, so it offers no directional help.

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