review_draft_assay_cutoff_ordering

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 covered. The description adds useful context that the tool aggregates three distinct external data sources (draft stressor links, KE assay candidates, CompTox bioactivity cutoffs), consistent with openWorldHint, but says nothing about cost, latency, 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose leads immediately. It is somewhat dense with domain jargon but nothing is wasted.

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, and the description conveys the conceptual inputs. However, for a five-parameter review tool with zero schema descriptions and no usage routing among many review siblings, the definition is only minimally complete.

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 all five parameters (draft_id, version_id, assay_limit, min_hitcall, stressor_limit) are undocumented. The description mentions concepts like assay candidates and stressor links but never maps them to the limit/threshold parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Review') and a precise resource ('per-KER assay-cutoff ordering evidence for a draft'), and even enumerates the inputs it combines (draft stressor links, KE assay candidates, CompTox bioactivity cutoffs). It is distinguishable from generic siblings like review_draft_bundle or review_draft_evidence_gaps, though it never names them 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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. The description explains what the tool composes but not when an agent should reach for this review tool over the many other review_* siblings.

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