mosaic_subindication_breakdown

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safe behavior is well-covered. The description adds that outputs include sub-indications with evidence type and confidence, but this is minimal additional 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?

The description is concise, with a clear two-sentence structure. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds detail and sibling comparison, with no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a read-only, idempotent tool. It explains the output and relationship to a sibling, though it lacks mention of any prerequisites or limits.

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 single parameter (gene_symbol) is described in the input schema, but the tool description does not add any further explanation or usage hints. With schema description coverage at 0% (per context), the description fails to compensate for lack of param guidance.

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 breaks down oncology associations by sub-indication for a given gene, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'mosaic_get_target_profile' by offering finer granularity.

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 explains the tool returns most relevant cancer sub-indications with evidence type and confidence, and explicitly states it complements mosaic_get_target_profile. This provides clear usage context, though it does not list alternative tools or when to avoid using it.

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