mosaic_get_target_profile

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

The description goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) by listing the extensive contents of the dossier (e.g., UniProt biology, SAR summary, clinical pipeline). No contradiction 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 two sentences: first states purpose, second lists contents. Every sentence adds value, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values but does so anyway. It fully covers the tool's purpose and outputs, making it complete for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It does not add any information about the 'gene_symbol' parameter beyond what the schema provides. The parameter is simple, but the description offers no guidance on syntax or format.

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 provides a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive intelligence dossier for a drug target'), and lists many specific content types. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like mosaic_target_scores and mosaic_target_validation.

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?

It explicitly states 'This is the primary tool for any target question', guiding the agent to use it as a first stop for general target information. However, it does not list alternatives or 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.