SharpSyn

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and closed-world; the description adds substantial behavioral context by enumerating the exact returned fields and explaining what happens when no public page exists. That fallback behavior is especially useful for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 and every clause carries useful information about outputs or fallback behavior. It is somewhat dense as a single long sentence, which slightly reduces scannability, but there is little wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly: identifiers, structure, supplier count, price range and confidence, carbon footprint details, citation URL, and no-page fallback. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics, and it does: the identifier may be a CAS number, InChIKey, or name. This is exactly the missing information an agent needs to supply the required argument correctly.

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 (retrieve) and resource (everything SharpSyn publishes about one compound). The identifier types and the enumerated payload make the scope unmistakable and distinct from search-oriented siblings.

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 clearly indicates this is a single-compound detail retrieval keyed by an identifier and covers the fallback when no public page exists. It does not explicitly name search_compounds or list_suppliers as alternatives, so sibling routing is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (only public listings, companies that requested listing) but does not address pagination, result limits, or ordering.

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 well-structured sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The trailing return-field list is mildly redundant because an output schema exists, but it does not harm readability.

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 an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly: scope, optional filters, accepted compound identifier formats, and result fields.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that compound accepts CAS, InChIKey, or name, and that country restricts to one country, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ("Suppliers listed publicly on SharpSyn") and defines the exact subset being listed (companies that asked to be listed). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_compound and 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 clearly explains that country and compound filtering are optional, giving an agent enough context to know when to apply filters. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: calling sends nothing, the user fills in quantities and submits the request themselves. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious detail annotations can't convey, though link lifetime or failure behavior is not covered.

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?

Two tight sentences, the output (a link) is front-loaded, and the caveat about nothing being sent follows immediately. No waste.

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?

With one simple parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what's missing: the return type (a link) and the fact that no request is dispatched. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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 0% and the lone `identifier` param is an undescribed string, but the description compensates by defining accepted formats – CAS number, InChIKey, or name. That is material guidance a caller could not get from the schema, though nothing is said about invalid or unmatched identifiers.

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 names a concrete output (a link the user opens) and its purpose (requesting a supplier quote for a compound), which is clearly distinct from the lookup-oriented siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer a sibling like get_compound, but an agent can still tell what this produces.

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: it's for when a user wants suppliers to quote on a compound. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to the siblings get_compound, list_suppliers, or search_compounds, so the agent must infer the routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by saying results are ranked best-match-first and summarize suppliers, price, and carbon footprint. It omits behavior such as result limits, pagination, or handling of no matches.

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 compact sentences, front-loads the core action and accepted query types, and uses the second sentence to describe results and ordering. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 the description need not fully explain return values, and annotations cover read-only and open-world status. The description adequately explains search inputs and result shape, though it could be more complete by mentioning the limit parameter and search matching 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does this well for the query parameter by listing accepted identifier types, but it says nothing about the limit parameter or its default behavior, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find compounds on SharpSyn') and enumerates the identifier types it accepts, making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_compound, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the plural search framing.

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 this is the search tool for locating compounds by various identifiers, which helps an agent choose it over get_compound. However, it never states when to use this versus retrieval by a known identifier, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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