get_chemical_extra_data

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description's main additional value is naming the data categories returned (functional use, use cases). It does not add auth, rate-limit, or other behavioral context, nor does it contradict the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the vagueness captured in other dimensions.

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 simple one-parameter shape, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the ambiguity of 'extra' and absence of any sibling differentiation leave a meaningful gap for correct tool selection.

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%, so the single parameter (dtxsids) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter format or usage, which is the baseline expectation when 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?

States a clear verb (Fetch) and resource (extra chemical data) with example data types, but 'extra' is vague and the description does not distinguish it from closely related siblings like get_exposure_functional_use or get_chemical_details. An agent can identify it as a read fetch but not precisely what scope it covers.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites. The many sibling tools that also retrieve chemical or exposure data make the lack of routing guidance a notable gap.

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