MONDO Disease Lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail of what the payload contains (synonyms, cross-refs, hierarchy), but says nothing about behavior when the ID is unknown/invalid or about the hierarchy toggle's effect — and since an output schema exists, the return-field list is partly redundant.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a tight bulleted field list and one concrete example. Efficient and scannable, with only the example sentence being arguably redundant for an agent that already sees the schema.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description needs only to state what is fetched and from where, which it does thoroughly. The remaining gaps — not-found/error behavior and the include_hierarchy flag — are minor for a single-ID read 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?

Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description must carry the load. It supplies the MONDO ID format via the worked example ('MONDO:0005010'), which helps, but it never names include_hierarchy or explains that hierarchy retrieval is optional and defaults on — it merely asserts the output includes parent/child terms.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a disease record from the MONDO unified disease ontology') and enumerates exactly what the record contains. It is distinguishable from search_diseases by being an ID-based single-record fetch, but it never names that sibling explicitly to make the contrast airtight.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers 'use when you already hold a MONDO ID.' There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of resolve_icd10_to_mondo or search_diseases as the path to take when you don't yet have an ID, and no prerequisites listed.

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