disease_drugs

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

Goes well past the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses the ranking order (max clinical phase, then trial-report count), that salt forms are collapsed, and the envelope shape with errors[] semantics including a retryable flag. That is exactly the kind of post-call behavior an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then ranking, then response shape. Only the trailing '(issue #130)' tracker reference fails to earn its place as agent-facing 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 carries the return-value burden and does so — envelope structure, ranking, and error taxonomy are all covered. What it omits is the per-drug result fields and any hint about valid disease ID namespaces, which matters because that is the required parameter.

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 50% (limit has no description at all) and the description never mentions limit or the expected disease_id format. It does add real signal about disease_id behavior — unresolved diseases land in errors[] rather than failing — which partially compensates but leaves the undocumented limit parameter unaddressed.

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 drugs associated with a disease — plus the upstream source (OpenTargets). The disease-scoped framing implicitly separates it from gene_drugs and drug_trials, though neither 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 only implied by the 'for a disease' scoping; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to the adjacent gene_drugs / drug_trials / disease_get tools. An agent can guess the context but gets no routing help.

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