Disease Target Evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds concrete behavioral details by listing evidence score types (e.g., genetic_association, somatic_mutation) and their data sources, going beyond the high-level hints. 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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose, followed by a bullet list of evidence scores, and ends with an example. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. Slight reduction for not being even more succinct, but still very good.

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?

With an output schema available, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers evidence score breakdown and provides an example, but lacks guidance on parameter tuning (e.g., when to adjust min_score) or error handling. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 detailed descriptions for each parameter, including examples (e.g., disease_id 'MONDO:0007254'). The description adds minimal parameter information beyond the schema, only showing an example call. 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's action ('Return top protein targets for a disease') with a specific source ('Open Targets evidence scores'). The title 'Disease Target Evidence' reinforces the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lookup_disease or search_diseases, which focus on diseases rather than targets.

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 usage through an example and evidence score breakdown but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_target_diseases or get_common_disease_targets. No direct comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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