Common Disease Target Profile

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it queries Open Targets live, returns a JSON string with error handling (per-disease errors inline, not raised), and returns a JSON error object for invalid categories or filters. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, limitations, and behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 existing annotations and output schema (not shown but present), the description is complete. It explains the return format (JSON string with category, disease count, profile object), error behavior, and alternative tools, leaving no critical gaps for agent usage.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters, so the description doesn't need to add much. It mentions the 'category' parameter with an example and the 'disease_name' filter, but does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 top drug targets for a curated set of common diseases in one call, using verb 'profile' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_disease_targets' by noting it is the category-level multi-disease counterpart.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for a fast landscape scan across a whole disease area' and contrasts with 'get_disease_targets' for single diseases. It also states what not to do: 'does not accept a raw MONDO ID', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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