mosaic_get_target_structure

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent; description adds AlphaFold source, return specifics (URLs, confidence, length), and use-case context without 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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 annotations covering safety and idempotence, an output schema present, and description detailing return values and use cases, the tool is fully contextualized.

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?

Despite schema having a description for 'gene_symbol', context indicates 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention the input parameter or explain how to provide the target, requiring the agent to infer from tool name.

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 'Get the AlphaFold structural snapshot for a drug target' and lists specific returned data. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with mosaic_assess_druggability.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('for SBDD scoping, disorder/IDR risk, confidence-aware target triage') and directs to pair with mosaic_assess_druggability for binding-pocket scoring, providing clear guidance.

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