mosaic_compound_polypharmacology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so no safety contradiction needed. The description adds value by detailing output content: targets, MOA, evidence counts, and semantic perspective, which goes beyond 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output details, then use cases. No unnecessary words, clearly structured.

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 an output schema present and clear description of what is returned, the description is complete for an agent to understand the tool's function and results. No missing information.

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 description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. The schema already describes compound_name with examples, so the tool description's mention of 'compound' is sufficient but not extra.

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 gets the polypharmacology profile of a compound, listing all targets with mechanism of action and evidence counts. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on semantic relations and use cases like off-target effects and repurposing.

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 explicitly mentions use cases: understanding off-target effects, repurposing potential, and selectivity. However, it does not contrast with siblings like mosaic_compound_selectivity or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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