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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: every edge carries evidence_tier and evidence_basis, and it explicitly warns that constituent presence is NOT evidence of therapeutic efficacy. This is valuable context that prevents misuse of the tool's biomedical output.

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?

Three dense sentences convey the tool's scope, data source, returned fields, and an important caveat with no filler. The most identifying information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the description supplies all essential context: data origin, entity type, output characteristics, evidence semantics, and a critical limitation. Nothing material is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema fully explains the herb and limit parameters. The description adds context about what the returned data contains (PubChem CID, CAS, bioavailability, evidence fields) but does not need to redefine the parameters.

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 the tool returns chemical ingredients/molecules identified in a Traditional Chinese Medicine herb, with specific associated data (PubChem CID, CAS, bioavailability, evidence fields). The herb-scoped, ingredient-retrieval focus distinguishes it from sibling tools like symmap_herb, symmap_ingredient, and symmap_symptom_herbs.

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 intended use case is implied: call this when you need the molecular constituents of a TCM herb. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related sibling tools such as symmap_herb or symmap_ingredient, so the agent must infer routing from the name and description.

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