get_assays_for_aops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the notion of aggregation across multiple AOPs; it says nothing about how per_aop_limit or min_hitcall shape the result set.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it is lean to the point of omitting useful parameter detail.

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 for a 4-parameter aggregation tool with 0% schema coverage, the parameters that control result breadth (per_aop_limit, min_hitcall, limit) are undocumented, leaving the definition materially incomplete.

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 4 parameters. The description only implicitly covers aop_ids ('multiple AOP identifiers'); limit, per_aop_limit, and min_hitcall go entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving the agent no basis to set the hitcall threshold.

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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (aggregated assay candidates) scoped to multiple AOP identifiers. The word 'aggregated' plus 'multiple' implicitly separates it from the singular get_assays_for_aop, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical list_assays_for_aops sibling.

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 a list of AOP IDs' gives clear triggering context. However, siblings list_assays_for_aops and list_assays_for_aop are functionally close, and the description offers no exclusion or routing rule to pick between them.

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