list_assays_for_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are aggregated across AOPs with query and per-AOP diagnostics, which is useful, but it discloses nothing about thresholding behavior (e.g., min_hitcall), limits, or what 'diagnostics' concretely contains.

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 front-loaded sentence that states input and output without padding. It is efficient, though a hint about parameter behavior would have been a worthwhile addition rather than a redundancy.

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 a six-parameter tool with a nontrivial threshold parameter (min_hitcall) is left with zero parameter documentation. For a multi-AOP aggregation tool the description is too thin to guide correct invocation.

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 six parameters, and the description explains none of them. Non-obvious knobs like min_hitcall (a hitcall threshold), search_limit, aop_limit, and per_aop_limit are left entirely uninterpreted, so an agent cannot reason about their effect from either schema or 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?

States a specific verb and resource (search AOPs from a phenotype/mechanism query, returning aggregated assay candidates) and hints at scope via 'aggregated' and 'per-AOP diagnostics'. The AOP-search framing implicitly separates it from per-AOP siblings, but no sibling is named to make the distinction explicit.

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 trigger ('given a phenotype or mechanism query') implies when it applies, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_assays_for_aop, list_assays_for_aops, or search_assays_for_key_event, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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