superstructure_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, whether there are rate limits, authentication needs, or how results are ordered/returned. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'larger compounds' means in context, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information to fully understand the tool's operation.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (SMILES string and max_records with range/default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the query structure is input via SMILES, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'find' and the resource 'larger compounds that contain the query structure', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'substructure_search' (which likely finds smaller compounds) by specifying 'larger compounds', but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or fully differentiate from all siblings like 'search_similar_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when-not scenarios, prerequisites, or explicitly name sibling tools like 'substructure_search' or 'search_similar_compounds' for comparison, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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