get_drug_literature_occurrences

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds no additional behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, filtering, or defaults for parameters like cursor, size, or year filters. The description contributes little beyond what the annotation already provides.

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, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It contains no redundant words and provides maximum conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and readOnly annotation, the tool has eight parameters including pagination and filtering. The description does not explain the purpose of these parameters or the nature of co-occurrence records. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity, as the agent must rely entirely on the schema.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the eight parameters. The only subtle hint is that chembl_id refers to a drug identifier, but no clarification is given for cursor, size, additional_entity_ids, or date filters. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses the verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'literature co-occurrence records' and the entity as 'a drug'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_disease_literature_occurrences and get_target_literature_occurrences, but it is terse and does not elaborate on what co-occurrence means.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or recommend sibling tools for other entity types. While the purpose is clear, the lack of any contextual usage cues means the agent is left without explicit direction.

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