get_bioactivity_summary_by_tissue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no auth requirements, rate limits, or data-scope caveats – so it contributes little behavioral context on top of the annotations.

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, appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter read tool. It could arguably carry one more clause of routing guidance without becoming bloated.

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 simple read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, given the dense cluster of near-identical bioactivity summary siblings, it lacks the routing information an agent needs to select correctly.

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 100%, so both dtxsid and tissue are already documented in the schema (including the liver example). The description restates the two dimensions but adds no format, identifier syntax, or validity details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (Fetch) and resource (bioactivity summary data) with the scoping dimension (chemical + tissue). This distinguishes it from sibling summary tools like get_bioactivity_summary_by_dtxsid and get_bioactivity_summary_by_aeid via the tissue grouping, though it never names those alternatives 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over the closely-related get_bioactivity_summary_by_dtxsid or get_bioactivity_data siblings. The agent must infer the routing from the name alone.

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