mosaic_compare_drugs

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by listing the specific return fields (max_phase, first approval year, etc.). Annotations already indicate safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), so the bar is lower, but the description enriches understanding of behavior.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences and an example. No superfluous information; front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the description listing key outputs, it is fairly complete. Does not mention input constraints (e.g., valid drug identifiers) but sufficient for typical use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly document the parameters, but the examples and context make their purpose clear. Lacks details like format or constraints, but adequate for simple string 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 clearly states 'Side-by-side comparison of two compounds' and lists specific outputs, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from siblings like mosaic_compare_targets by focusing on compounds.

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?

Provides explicit usage examples ('osimertinib vs erlotinib') indicating when to use. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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