mosaic_modality_gaps

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

Discloses that modality is a heuristic SMILES classification with partial coverage, and that 'unclassified' is reported explicitly. Also notes target-level limitation. Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent and description adds valuable context beyond 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?

Two concise paragraphs: first states purpose and defines modality; second covers caveats. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain returns. It covers purpose, classification methodology, limitations (partial coverage, unclassified, target-level only), sufficient for agent to use correctly.

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 schema already describes the single parameter (target_or_family) well, including the family-level caveat. The tool description adds context on modality classification but does not enhance parameter meaning further. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: identifying which compound modalities are explored vs absent for a target. It defines the heuristic classification and lists the modalities, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mosaic_get_target_compounds.

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 states that protein_family is not populated, so family-level queries are unavailable. This guides the agent to use target gene symbols only. However, no alternative tools for family-level modalities are mentioned.

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