mosaic_compound_selectivity

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds that it shows activity values against every tested target, providing context 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 sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, good annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and use case. It could mention return format or limits, but it is still adequate.

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 input schema provides a description for the only parameter, compound_id. The tool description adds no further parameter details, but the schema covers it adequately. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the selectivity profile of a compound across all targets, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'mosaic_compound_polypharmacology', which may overlap.

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 it is critical for assessing off-target effects and safety liability, implying when to use it. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings.

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