get_drug_linked_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the context of using mechanism-of-action data, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits like pagination, filtering, or return format. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It earns its place by clearly stating the function in a concise manner.

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?

Given the tool is a simple getter with one required parameter and an output schema (which likely describes the target objects), the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks guidance on the expected input format (e.g., ChEMBL ID format) and does not clarify what 'fields' controls. The description is not misleading but is minimal.

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?

The schema has two parameters (chembl_id required, fields optional) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter or add any meaning beyond the schema. The tool name hints that chembl_id is the drug identifier, but the optional 'fields' parameter is unexplained, leaving an agent without enough semantic information.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Return') and the resource ('targets linked to a drug'), and specifies the mechanism ('via mechanism-of-action data'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_drug_linked_diseases and get_drug_info.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need targets linked to a drug via MoA) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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