gene_diseases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond that: a required DISGENET_API_KEY environment variable and a documented fallback to OpenTargets associations when it's absent, which tells the agent results may come from different sources.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the environment/fallback caveat follows immediately. Nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at what is returned (disease names, association scores, sources), but it doesn't. The data-source fallback is well covered, but the undocumented 'limit' parameter and unstated return shape leave 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 50%: 'symbol' is documented as an HGNC gene symbol in the schema, but 'limit' (default 10, max 50) is undocumented anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither compensates for the gap nor harms; baseline 3 applies.

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 (get diseases associated with a gene), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from gene_get or disease_search by direction of the lookup. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the scope is clear.

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 the use case (find diseases for a given gene) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and doesn't point to alternatives like disease_search for the reverse lookup or gene_drugs for the drug angle. The API-key/fallback note is about data source, not tool selection.

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