MONDO Disease Lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds detail on return content (canonical MONDO entry with specific fields, cross-references, hierarchy), which is consistent. No contradictions or omissions about side effects or auth needs.

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: a single introductory sentence, a bullet list of return fields, and an example. No redundant information; each sentence serves a purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure. It mentions hierarchy (which is not fully detailed in schema) and cross-references. Minor omission: no mention of error cases or behavior for invalid MONDO IDs.

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 both parameters (mondo_id and include_hierarchy). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the example usage. With schema coverage high, 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?

Description explicitly states the tool retrieves a disease record from the MONDO ontology, specifies return fields (name, definitions, cross-references, hierarchy), and gives an example. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like search_diseases (search by name) and lookup_phenotype (phenotype lookup).

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 for exact MONDO ID lookups via the example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_diseases for name-based search). No guidance on when not to use it or required prerequisites.

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