discover

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

readOnlyHint already covers safety, and the description adds real behavioral detail: exact-match preference, case-insensitivity, cross-entity-type ranking order, demotion of numbered susceptibility-locus labels, and matched_on values ('exact'/'first'). That is substantive beyond the annotation. It does not describe result ordering stability or limits, so not a 5.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core purpose before ranking nuance. No filler, and every clause carries behavioral information.

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 no output schema, the description's explanation of the matched_on field is valuable and helps the agent interpret results. Remaining gaps (result volume, what entity fields are returned) are minor for a single-param read-only lookup.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage, including examples in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description restates the concept of a free-text query but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema supplies.

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+resource: resolves a free-text query to matching entities. The phrase 'across entity types' signals it is a cross-type resolver rather than a type-specific search, which distinguishes it implicitly from gene_search/disease_search, but no sibling is named.

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 implied by 'free-text concept resolution' and the multi-type ranking behavior, so an agent can infer it is for when the entity type is unknown. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not clause, and no named alternative such as gene_search for type-specific lookups.

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