mosaic_get_target_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns publications with titles and dates but no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate limits). No contradictions with 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 required parameter and clear annotations, the description is largely sufficient. However, it lacks mention of the output schema or any edge cases, but with the output schema existing and the annotations covering safety, it is reasonably complete.

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 explain the parameters (gene_symbol and limit) beyond what the input schema already provides. With 0% schema description coverage (as per context), the description should compensate but does not. The schema itself has descriptions, but the description text adds no parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'scientific papers' with a clear focus on a drug target. It distinguishes from siblings like mosaic_get_target_compounds or mosaic_get_target_patents by explicitly mentioning 'papers' and data sources (PubMed/OpenAlex).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied from the purpose, but there is no mention of when to choose this over similar tools like mosaic_get_target_patents or mosaic_search_targets.

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