assemble_comptox_evidence_pack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety/idempotency profile. The description adds that the output is a 'portable' pack, but omits meaningful behavioral context such as what allow_fallback (default false) actually does and what the pack contains beyond the domain list.

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 the verb first and zero filler. It is appropriately tight, though its brevity is arguably under-specification for a 12-parameter composite tool.

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?

For a 12-parameter aggregation tool the description is thin: it does not explain fallback behavior, candidate/assay limits, or how the pack differs from the narrower sibling builders. An output schema and rich annotations reduce the burden somewhat, but the behavioral and usage gaps are substantial.

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?

With 12 parameters at only 42% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only loosely names the include_* domains and says nothing about allow_fallback, max_assays, max_candidates, or the hazard_datasets enum, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and 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 ('Assemble') and resource ('CompTox evidence pack') and enumerates the six constituent domains (identity, hazard, exposure, bioactivity, AOP linkage, PBPK context). Clear purpose, but it gives no signal to distinguish it from sibling composite builders like build_aop_linkage_summary or build_pbpk_context_bundle.

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 description only says what the tool produces; it offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the narrower build_* sibling tools or prioritize_risk_signals. The agent must infer when a full evidence pack is warranted.

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