Common Disease Target Profile

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds that it uses curated MONDO IDs and Open Targets evidence scores, but does not disclose any behavioral nuances beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 well-structured with a clear one-liner, a list of categories, and a relevant example. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. A bit more conciseness would improve it.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers categories, data sources, and an example. It could mention limitations or curation details, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a query tool.

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 input schema descriptions cover the parameters well (category options, disease_name usage, target_limit bounds). The description adds an example usage but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Given 100% schema description coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 profiles protein targets for major common diseases across ICD chapters, using curated MONDO IDs and Open Targets evidence scores. It lists 9 categories and gives an example. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_disease_targets', which may have a similar purpose.

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 says it is designed for target identification in drug discovery and understanding disease-relevant proteins, which gives context. It provides an example call. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as 'compare_disease_target_overlap' or 'get_disease_targets'.

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