discover_orphan_stressors_for_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the internal pipeline (search AOPs then aggregate across them) and that output includes per-AOP diagnostics, but adds nothing about cost, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 input condition and the action sequence with no filler. It is well structured, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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, but the definition is incomplete for a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and two near-duplicate siblings. The key information an agent needs, parameter meaning and which variant to choose, is missing.

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% and the description mentions no parameter at all. Seven parameters, several cryptically named (min_hitcall, per_assay_chemical_limit, per_aop_limit, aop_limit vs search_limit vs limit), are left entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot infer their meaning or interaction from either source.

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 states a specific multi-step action (search AOPs, aggregate orphan chemical candidates, return diagnostics) triggered by a phenotype/mechanism query. It is clear about what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from the closely named siblings discover_orphan_stressors_for_aops and discover_orphan_stressors_for_aop, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. Given three near-identical 'discover_orphan_stressors_*' tools in the sibling list, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap; usage is only weakly implied by the 'query' input.

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