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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: matching is case-insensitive and results are capped at the top 10 matches, which helps set expectations for result volume and matching semantics.

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 tightly written sentences with zero wasted words. The search scope and matching behavior are front-loaded, and the result limit is stated immediately after.

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 explain return values, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a one-parameter search tool, the description is nearly complete, though it could add a brief note on when to use this versus the exact-lookup sibling.

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 100%, and the single query parameter is well documented in the schema with examples. The description reinforces that fragments and aliases are accepted but does not add syntax or matching rules beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (compounds), and clarifies the searchable fields: published names and aliases including brand names, research codes, and shorthand. It does not explicitly differentiate this fuzzy search from the sibling get_compound lookup, so it falls short of a 5.

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 by explaining that this searches names and aliases, but it never states when to choose it over get_compound or how it differs from an exact lookup. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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