get_target_chemical_probes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, indicating a read-only operation. The description adds that the output includes quality metrics, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination, rate limits, or whether all probes are returned. Given the annotation, the bar is lower, and the description adds minimal value beyond annotation.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, and it front-loads the action and object.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. The description is sufficient to understand the tool's role and context, though it could benefit from naming the parameter relation to the tool's purpose. Overall, it is a complete enough description for a list operation.

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 one required parameter, ensembl_id, with no description, and the tool description does not explicitly explain it. The description implies the probes are for a target but does not clarify the meaning, format, or examples of ensembl_id. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 lists available chemical probes and their quality metrics, using the specific verb 'list' with the resource 'chemical probes'. It is distinct among the many get_target_* siblings because it focuses specifically on probes, not drugs or other target info, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives.

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 usage is implied: to list chemical probes for a given target (identified by ensembl_id), this tool is appropriate. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_target_known_drugs, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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