mosaic_resistance_bypass_map

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses the methodology (deterministic keyword pass, no resistance edge type), ranking logic (drugability-gap score), and that every row carries a source snippet. It clearly sets expectations about reliability.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then methodology, ranking, and a note on source snippet. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context on methodology, ranking, and output nature (source snippets). It is complete given the complexity and available structured data.

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 tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. The schema itself has good descriptions for 'target' and 'indication', but the description does not compensate for the low coverage as required.

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 surfaces candidate resistance-bypass targets for a given target, using a deterministic keyword pass over literature and ranking by drugability-gap score. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mosaic_evidence_map.

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 explicitly notes it is a 'hypothesis generator, not evidence', giving clear usage context. It implies when to use (exploration) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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