gene_diseases

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires an environment variable and has a data source fallback. Annotations already indicate readOnly and openWorld, and the description does not contradict them.

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 precise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second provides crucial configuration info.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and a key dependency (env var). However, it does not describe the return format or structure, which could be helpful given no output schema.

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 described, limit not). The description adds no new parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as the limit parameter's purpose or default behavior.

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?

The description clearly states it retrieves diseases associated with a gene, using the verb 'Get' and resource 'diseases'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gene_articles, gene_drugs, etc., by specifying the output type.

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 provides usage context by mentioning the DISGENET_API_KEY requirement and fallback to OpenTargets. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools for when to use this tool instead of others.

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