discover_orphan_stressors_for_aop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it reaches out to CompTox for active chemicals, filters out already-curated AOP stressors, and returns results with diagnostics — meaningful context about data provenance and exclusion logic that annotations cannot convey.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the starting point ('one AOP's strongest assay candidates') and follows the pipeline in execution order. Every clause carries information; only the trailing 'with diagnostics' is slightly vague, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be described. However, for a multi-step pipeline tool with five undocumented parameters and several near-identical siblings, the description leaves both the tuning knobs and the choice-of-tool question unresolved — adequate, but with clear 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 description coverage is 0% for all five parameters, and the description names none of them: limit, assay_limit, min_hitcall, and per_assay_chemical_limit are never explained. The phrases 'strongest assay candidates' and 'active assay chemicals' only hint at thresholds, so an agent must guess what min_hitcall (default 0.9) or per_assay_chemical_limit actually control.

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?

Names a specific verb (discover), the resource (orphan chemical stressors), and the scoping unit ('one AOP'), which cleanly separates it from the plural sibling discover_orphan_stressors_for_aops. The description also outlines the four-step pipeline (assay candidates → CompTox chemicals → exclusion → candidates with diagnostics), so an agent knows exactly what work it performs.

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 phrase 'Start from one AOP's strongest assay candidates' implies the trigger condition (you have a single AOP and want novel chemical candidates), but the description never states when not to use it or names the alternatives discover_orphan_stressors_for_aops and discover_orphan_stressors_for_query. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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