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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose how adduct or tolerance affect the search, whether an API key is required for authentication, rate limits, or that multiple candidates may be returned ranked.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is efficient. However, that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification for a four-parameter tool rather than being genuinely complete.

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 with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and undocumented adduct/tolerance semantics, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke this confidently without guessing at defaults and behavior.

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%, and the description only implicitly touches measured_mz. It adds no meaning for adduct (default [M+H]+), tolerance_ppm (default 5), or api_key, leaving three of four parameters undocumented in both schema and text.

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?

States a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('molecular formula candidates') with the input ('measured m/z value'). This distinguishes it from siblings like covams_isotope or covams_fragment_predict, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied by the description's phrasing - an agent can infer it applies when it has an m/z value and wants formula candidates. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives like covams_identify or covams_search_db.

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