mosaic_indication_landscape

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description ('Get', 'shows') is consistent but adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide. 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?

Two sentences with clear front-loading. Every sentence adds value: first defines purpose, second details content. No redundant or 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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers main contents. Annotations cover safety. Minor gap: doesn't specify whether 'full' includes all available data or curated. Still adequate for a landscape 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%, meaning the description does not describe the parameter. The input schema includes a description for 'indication_name', but the tool description fails to mention the parameter or provide examples, despite the low coverage requiring compensation.

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 full therapeutic landscape for a disease indication' and enumerates what it shows (targets, compounds, clinical status). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like mosaic_clinical_pipeline or mosaic_compound_polypharmacology.

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 implies usage for an overview ('full therapeutic landscape') but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided. Context signals indicate many sibling tools exist, but no guidance is given.

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