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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden but only implies a read-only screening operation. It does not state what reference set is used, whether the screen is exact or tolerance-based, what the container_type default of 'glass' actually changes, or that api_key is needed.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste, so it is concise. But that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the tool has three undocumented parameters, no usage guidance, and no behavioral detail, which is inadequate for a domain-specific screening tool in a crowded sibling set.

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% for 3 parameters, and the description adds nothing: it never explains the required sample_peaks format or the role of the container_type parameter beyond its 'glass' default. The undocumented parameters are left entirely unaddressed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it screens sample peaks against a known extractable/leachable (E&L) compound set, which is a distinct operation from generic identification cousins like covams_identify or covams_search_db. It does not, however, explicitly name how it differs from those 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as covams_identify, covams_search_db, or covams_impurity_find. An agent must infer the E&L-specific use case (packaging/container leachables) from the name alone.

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