mosaic_kol_finder

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the scoring mechanism (recency weighting) and return fields. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior; no additional destructive traits are disclosed.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses two short paragraphs with no wasted words, effectively communicating the tool's function and output.

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 that an output schema exists, the description is fairly complete, explaining the ranking logic and output fields. It lacks explicit edge cases or prerequisites but suffices for a straightforward ranking 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?

The description provides no explanation of input parameters (limit, gene_symbol, indication_name) beyond what is in the schema. Schema descriptions exist for two parameters, but limit lacks description. The description does not clarify required combinations or defaults.

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 the verb 'Rank' and resource 'top authors (KOLs)', and specifies the criteria (paper volume with recency weighting). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mosaic_get_target_papers by focusing on KOL ranking rather than paper retrieval.

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 provides context (advisory board assembly, trial PI scouting) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It inadequately guides agents on selection among sibling tools.

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