mosaic_talent_migration

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the data source (publication-based, resolved persons table) and explicitly excluding patent inventors, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 short paragraphs with a clear first sentence summarizing the purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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 (not shown but stated) and schema descriptions for parameters, the description adequately defines the tool's scope. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (target as gene symbol, lookback_years as history years). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema's own descriptions, so baseline 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 surfaces researchers on a target and shows their other targets, i.e., talent-flow signal. The verb 'surfaces' and specific resource 'researchers on a target' make the purpose distinct from sibling tools like mosaic_get_target_papers or mosaic_target_network.

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 implies usage: when you want to see 'people who worked on X now also on Y'. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select appropriately among siblings.

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