get_congress_abstract_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses elevated risk and sections (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusions), but does not clarify whether the tool returns a prompt or the abstract itself, nor any side effects or permissions needed. The behavioral disclosure is partial.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the primary purpose and adding a critical safety note. It is concise and wastes no words, though it could briefly mention parameter roles.

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 (reducing need to describe return values), the tool has 6 parameters, 5 required, and carries safety concerns. The description lacks parameter explanations and does not clarify if it is a prompt-generator or direct drafter, leaving gaps for reliable invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not explain parameter meanings. It only lists output sections, leaving parameters like study_description, key_primary_result, etc., unexplained beyond their names. The agent receives minimal guidance on how to populate inputs.

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 states 'Draft a congress abstract for ASCO, ASH, ESMO, APA, or similar' which clearly specifies the action (draft) and resource (congress abstract), and distinguishes it from many sibling tools that draft other document types (e.g., discussion sections, cover letters).

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 includes a data safety warning ('only use data approved for external disclosure'), indicating when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly exclude other contexts or compare to sibling abstract tools like get_structured_abstract_prompt, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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