mosaic_org_portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the tool shows targets, patents, therapy area focus, and competitive positioning, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as result size limits or response structure. It does not contradict 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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and then elaborates on output details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description adequately covers returned elements (targets, patents, therapy area, competitive positioning). It does not mention possible size limits or name matching nuances, but given the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already includes a description for the org_name parameter (e.g., 'Organization name or partial name'). The tool description does not add further detail beyond what the schema provides. With schema coverage reported as 0%, the description partially compensates by implying the need for an organization name, but adds no new parameter semantics.

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 retrieves a pharma/biotech organization's full portfolio, listing drug targets, patents, therapy areas, and competitive positioning. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('organization portfolio'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific facets like competitive landscape or target profiles.

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 indicates the tool is used to understand what a company is working on and where they are investing, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like mosaic_competitive_landscape or mosaic_search_targets, nor does it include any exclusions.

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