discover_orphan_stressors_for_aops

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that: exclusion of stressors curated anywhere in the selected AOP set, use of each pathway's strongest assay evidence, and cross-AOP support ranking.

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 aggregation, then the exclusion rule, then the ranking criterion. No waste, though the run-on structure makes it harder to scan than two short sentences would.

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 return values need not be described, and the core pipeline semantics are present. However, for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any parameter-level guidance leaves the definition only marginally complete.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at the strongest-evidence threshold (relating to min_hitcall) and ranking/limits, but never explains min_hitcall, per_aop_limit, per_assay_chemical_limit, or limit, leaving four cutoffs undocumentable from the description.

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?

Specific verb (aggregate) plus a well-defined resource (orphan chemical candidates across multiple AOPs), with the ranking basis stated. Implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling discover_orphan_stressors_for_aop via 'across multiple AOPs', but never names that alternative explicitly.

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 mechanics (excluding curated stressors, combining strongest evidence per pathway) imply the use case — finding novel candidates not yet linked to the selected AOP set — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative versus the single-AOP variant.

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