mosaic_compound_analogs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the output includes 'similarity scores, shared scaffolds, and their activity against targets,' which goes beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. It efficiently states purpose, output details, and use case, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple input (one parameter with limit) and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (scores, scaffolds, activity). It could mention sorting or pagination but is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 0% description coverage according to context, so the description must compensate. The description does not add any information about the parameters (compound_id and limit) beyond what the schema provides (which already has basic descriptions). This leaves a gap for the agent to understand acceptable formats or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Get structural analogs of a compound with Tanimoto similarity.' It specifies the verb (Get), resource (structural analogs), and method (Tanimoto similarity), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mosaic_get_target_compounds which retrieve compounds by target.

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 mentions 'Useful for SAR analysis and lead optimization,' providing a use context. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., mosaic_compound_selectivity or mosaic_find_similar_targets), nor does it state when not to use it.

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