mosaic_target_scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds that scores are returned on a 0-1 scale with direction, which provides modest additional context. No contradictions.

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: the first states core purpose, the second lists return components. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description adequately explains the tool's output. It could mention that only a single target is queried at a time, but the input schema makes that clear. Overall, it is complete for a simple read-only tool.

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% (per context), so the description must compensate for missing parameter details. The description does not mention the input parameter (gene symbol) or its format, leaving the agent reliant solely on the schema. Since it adds no semantics beyond the schema, and coverage is low, the score is low.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'attractiveness scores for a drug target'. It lists the five score components (overall attractiveness, scientific validation, druggability, competitive intensity, research momentum) with scale (0-1) and direction, distinguishing it from siblings like mosaic_assess_druggability or mosaic_competitive_landscape which focus on narrower aspects.

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 a quick summary of target attractiveness is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like mosaic_target_validation or mosaic_competitive_landscape. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided, so the agent must infer context from the tool name.

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