prioritize_risk_signals

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 word 'caveated' hints that the output carries uncertainty qualifiers, which is genuine added context, but the description never says what those caveats are or how the priority is derived.

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 no filler. It is dense with domain acronyms (AED, SEEM, HTTK, MMDB, CPDat) that an agent may not resolve, 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 formatting need not be described. But this is a complex multi-source analytical tool, and the description says nothing about how priority is computed, what the caveats encode, or how to interpret the summary — gaps that matter for correct downstream use.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the anyOf requirement between dtxsid and identifier and the fallback/candidate semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('screening-priority summary') and enumerates the source signals it draws on (AED, SEEM, HTTK, MMDB, CPDat), so the agent can tell what it produces. However, it does not distinguish itself from composite siblings like assemble_comptox_evidence_pack or build_pbpk_context_bundle, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 prerequisite guidance. The agent cannot tell from the description when this aggregate tool should be chosen over the individual source tools (get_bioactivity_aed, get_seem_general, search_cpdat) or over assemble_comptox_evidence_pack.

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