uniprot_get_disease_associations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds behavioral context: explains empty results do not imply disease irrelevance, and describes the provenance (literature-anchored). No contradictions; description enhances understanding beyond 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?

Description is concise, front-loading the core purpose and key details (returned fields, clinical relevance). 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 output schema exists, description does not need to explain return structure. Covers tool purpose, usage guidance, behavioral nuances, and parameter context comprehensively. Context signals indicate no gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with two parameters adequately described in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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?

Clearly states the tool returns structured disease associations for a UniProt entry, listing specific fields (name, acronym, UniProt disease ID, OMIM cross-reference, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it is UniProt-curated versus raw cross-references.

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 states the tool is critical for clinical interpretation and clarifies what differentiates it from raw cross-references. Provides guidance on when not to rely on empty results, directing to alternative sources like Open Targets, OMIM, and DisGeNET for population-level evidence.

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