get_drug_repurposing_candidates

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. The term 'chaining' adds some behavioral context (it traverses disease-target-drug evidence), but it does not disclose details like latency, rate limits, or the nature of the output. This is acceptable for a read-only tool with annotations, but not rich enough for a 4.

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 that clearly states the purpose without any fluff. It is concise and earns its place, though it could provide more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

With 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description still fails to provide necessary context for correct usage. It does not explain how the chaining works, what the parameters control, or what the output represents. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the parameter side remains severely under-documented for a tool of this complexity.

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 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain any of the parameter meanings except indirectly implying that 'disease' refers to the required efo_id. No guidance is given for max_targets, min_association_score, approved_only, etc., leaving the agent to guess. This is a critical gap.

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 tool's purpose: to find drug repurposing candidates by chaining disease, target, and drug evidence. The specific verb 'Find' and resource 'repurposing candidates' distinguish it from sibling tools like get_disease_known_drugs or get_drug_linked_diseases, which focus on known associations rather than candidate generation.

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 phrase 'by chaining disease, target, and drug evidence' implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. There is no clear exclusion criteria, so the guidance is only implicit rather than definitive.

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