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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond them: data provenance (Cannabis Compound Database, mg/g dry flower), return composition (mean, number of values, PubMed ID per source), and caveats about cultivar name reliability with citations. It does not cover error behavior or response format details, but the added context is substantial.

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 front-loaded with purpose and data source, and each sentence carries useful information. The first sentence is dense with nested clauses, but overall it is efficient and avoids fluff.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned, the data source, units, and caveats. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the results without needing further detail.

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 coverage is 100%, and the id parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description repeats 'by CCD id or name' and includes an example argument, but adds no new constraints or semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 it retrieves one cultivar's laboratory-measured chemistry from the atlas's Cannabis Compound Database, including every measured compound with mean, count, and PubMed ID. It distinguishes from a community strain index but does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools like get_compound or search_compounds.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Use for strain chemistry' and explicitly warns 'never the community strain index.' This gives a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use, but it does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., search_compounds) that an agent might consider.

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