map_assay_to_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 structurally. The description adds the input-type restriction (assay IDs, not AOP IDs), which is genuinely new behavioral context, but says nothing about result shape, cardinality, or lookup failure behavior.

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, zero waste, with the core action stated first and the constraint second. Nothing is padded or repeated from the name.

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 explained, and the description covers the input domain and its exclusion. It is essentially complete for a simple one-parameter read tool, missing only a note on what 'related' means or how many AOPs typically come back.

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 the single parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies that the input is an assay identifier and warns against passing AOP IDs, which meaningfully constrains usage, but adds no format, prefix, or ID-syntax detail.

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+resource: given an assay identifier, return related AOPs. This clearly distinguishes it from direction-reversed siblings like get_related_aops and from map_chemical_to_aops, though it does not name any sibling 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 negative constraint 'Do not pass AOP IDs' implicitly routes the agent toward AOP-first tools for the reverse direction, which is useful. However, there is no positive statement of when to prefer this over list_assays_for_aop, get_assays_for_aop, or get_related_aops, so guidance is only implied.

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