review_draft_bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a composite bundle and that chemical projection is optional, which is useful scope context, but it discloses nothing about cost, response size, or what 'chemical projection' entails.

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 names the resource first and lists the components without filler. Slightly dense, but every clause earns its place in conveying what the bundle contains.

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 with 9 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the definition is under-specified for a tool this broad. Critical inputs like assay_limit, min_hitcall, stressor_limit, and the draft/version identifiers are never explained.

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 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints at chemical projection (loosely tied to cas/name/dtxsid/inchikey) and says nothing about draft_id, version_id, assay_limit, min_hitcall, or stressor_limit, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 ('Build') and resource ('unified draft review bundle') and enumerates the four components it aggregates (validation, evidence-gap findings, per-KER assay-cutoff ordering, chemical projection). The enumeration maps onto sibling tools like review_draft_evidence_gaps and review_draft_assay_cutoff_ordering, so an agent can infer the aggregate nature, though those siblings are never named 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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The phrase 'combines ... into one response' only weakly implies this is a convenience wrapper over the individual review tools; the agent is left to infer that it should prefer this over calling the specialized siblings separately.

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