mosaic_find_opportunities

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 the scoring formula (opportunity_score = validation × (1 - competition) × momentum_boost), providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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-loads the main purpose, and includes the scoring formula efficiently. Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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?

Given the simple parameter structure (one object with two fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and how it scores opportunities. It lacks only minor details like prerequisites or output format.

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?

Context signals indicate schema description coverage is 0%, but the input schema actually contains descriptions for both parameters ('Max results' and 'Optional therapy area filter'). However, the tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. With low effective coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 finds underexplored high-potential drug targets (white-space opportunities) with high validation and low competitive intensity. This distinguishes it from siblings by specifying low competition and high validation as criteria.

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 explains when to use the tool: for targets with strong biology but low Big Pharma presence. It implies use for novel drug programs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with similar siblings like mosaic_synthetic_lethal_whitespace or mosaic_find_undruggable_targets.

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