get_exposure_ccd_keywords

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description contributes nothing beyond the safety data — no note on what 'keywords' represent, scoping, or any retrieval behavior.

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 phrase with zero filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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 an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the definition is minimally sufficient for a one-param lookup. What is missing is domain context (what CCD keywords are) and sibling differentiation, which an agent would need to route correctly.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('dtxsid' documented as DSSTox Substance Identifier), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or example beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 verb (retrieve) and a resource (CCD general use keywords), so the basic action is identifiable. However, 'CCD general use keywords' is opaque jargon, and with six sibling tools named get_exposure_ccd_* the description does nothing to distinguish this one from get_exposure_ccd_functional_use, get_exposure_ccd_puc, etc.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. The agent gets no signal about when this keyword lookup is preferable to the other CCD or exposure endpoints in the sibling set.

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