get_assays_for_aop

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — notably it never mentions that results are filtered by min_hitcall (default 0.9) or capped by limit, which materially affects what "assay candidates" means.

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?

It is short and front-loads the action, but the second sentence repeats the first almost verbatim and earns little. Two sentences where one would have done, with no room saved for the missing parameter context.

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 no explanation, but the description still omits the meaning of min_hitcall and the result cap, and gives no differentiation among the many sibling assay-lookup tools. For a 3-parameter query tool at 0% schema coverage, this leaves real 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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It implies aop_id is the input but says nothing about limit (default 25, max 100) or min_hitcall (default 0.9, 0-1), a threshold that silently filters results — a serious omission for an agent trying to interpret the output.

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 verb and resource (return assay candidates for one AOP identifier), which is clear on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as list_assays_for_aop, get_assays_for_aops, and list_assays_for_aops, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick from the description alone.

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?

"Use this when you have an AOP ID and want assays" is essentially a restatement of the purpose rather than guidance. With four sibling tools covering the same AOP-to-assay mapping, the description gives no criteria, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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