Check Disease Risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the key behavioral traits. The description adds some context (list of conditions) but does not disclose additional behaviors like authentication requirements or response format. With strong annotations, the description's marginal contribution is sufficient.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists examples. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose and supported inputs. However, it does not describe the return format or behavior when a condition is not supported, which would improve completeness.

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?

The schema already describes the 'condition' parameter with examples, and schema description coverage is 100%, earning a baseline of 3. The description adds value by enumerating specific supported conditions (cancer, alzheimer's, diabetes, etc.), enhancing the agent's understanding beyond the schema's brief example.

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 purpose: checking genetic risk for a specific disease or condition. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('genetic risk'), and the list of supported conditions distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_medication' or 'full_risk_report'.

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 implies when to use the tool by listing supported conditions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it doesn't differentiate this from the related 'full_risk_report' tool. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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