mosaic_compare_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the input range (2-5) and the output metrics (compound counts, patent counts, etc.), which are behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradiction noted.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second lists outputs. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown but implied), the description covers core functionality and output fields. It does not mention error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., valid gene symbols), or limitations, but is adequate for a read-only, idempotent tool with good annotations.

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%, meaning the nested parameter (gene_symbols) lacks description in the schema. The description mentions 'gene symbols' but does not elaborate on format, valid values, or constraints beyond min/max items. It partially compensates but leaves ambiguity (e.g., what symbols are valid).

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 it performs a side-by-side comparison of 2-5 drug targets, listing specific metrics returned (compound counts, patent counts, etc.). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like mosaic_compare_drugs (which compares drugs) and mosaic_search_targets (which searches for targets).

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 implies usage for comparing multiple targets, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like mosaic_find_similar_targets or mosaic_get_target_profile. It provides clear context but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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