mosaic_synthetic_lethal_whitespace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds context about the output being a hypothesis generator, ranked by whitespace score, and returning a deterministic experimental approach. This goes beyond the 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 paragraphs with a clear front-loaded purpose. It is reasonably concise but includes necessary explanatory detail without being verbose.

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 existence of an output schema and detailed annotations, the description covers purpose, usage limitations, behavioral notes, and output nature completely. No gaps are evident.

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 descriptions (provided in the input) already explain parameters like limit, lineage, and approved_target in detail. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, and given the context signals indicate 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameters.

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 finds synthetic-lethal whitespace targets that are functionally coupled to a developed target but undeveloped. It specifies the method (STRING PPI and Reactome pathways) and distinguishes itself from DepMap co-essentiality, differentiating it from sibling tools.

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 for use (anchor target with chemical matter) and explicitly states the tool is a hypothesis generator, not evidence, and that the proxy is not DepMap co-essentiality. It does not name specific alternative tools but gives clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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