get_target_literature_occurrences

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, describing a non-mutating 'Return' operation. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or what 'co-occurrence records' include.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. While concise, the brevity borders on under-specification for such a parameter-rich tool.

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, no parameter semantics in the description, and only readOnly annotation plus an output schema, the single sentence does not cover key usage details like pagination via size/cursor, date-range filters, or additional entity IDs. The output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity, but the description leaves too much to the agent to infer.

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 input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description fails to mention any of them (ensembl_id, size, cursor, start/end year/month, additional_entity_ids). The only vague reference is 'a target', which does not explain that ensembl_id is required or how pagination or filtering works.

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 specific verb 'Return' and names the resource 'literature co-occurrence records for a target', clearly identifying a query operation scoped to a target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_disease_literature_occurrences and get_drug_literature_occurrences, though it is terse.

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 'for a target' implies this is the target-specific literature occurrence lookup, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over the disease or drug variants, nor any exclusions or alternatives. The usage is only implied, not directly stated.

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