build_aop_linkage_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain the fallback path implied by allow_fallback, what happens when an identifier fails to resolve, or any cost/rate characteristics of this composite build operation.

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, which is efficient. It is under-specified rather than bloated, but as written every word earns its place.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described), this is a 7-parameter composite tool with a 57% schema coverage gap and no usage guidance. The description does not provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly or distinguish it from sibling AOP/bioactivity tools.

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 only 57%, and several parameters (max_assays, max_candidates, allow_fallback) have no schema descriptions at all. The description provides no parameter-level meaning to compensate, so the agent is left guessing what allow_fallback or the max_* limits actually control.

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 ('AOP linkage summary') with the source data named (bioactivity assay and AOP crosswalk data). However, it offers no differentiation from closely-named siblings such as get_bioactivity_aop or get_bioactivity_summary_by_dtxsid, and 'CompTox-side' is unexplained jargon, so an agent cannot confidently pick it over those alternatives.

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 contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. It does not mention the dtxsid-vs-identifier choice, when to prefer this over the sibling AOP/bioactivity summary tools, or what conditions make the summary useful.

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