get_exposure_ccd_puc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond this — no note on data source, coverage limits, or what a missing PUC record yields — so it contributes essentially zero behavioral context.

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 five-word sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read. Still, nothing explains what a CCD PUC record represents or how it relates to the other exposure siblings, leaving the agent to guess at 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%: the single required dtxsid parameter is documented as 'DSSTox Substance Identifier' in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or identifier-resolution guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('CCD Product Use Category data'), so the agent knows what domain object is returned. However, it offers no differentiation from nearby siblings such as list_exposure_product_puc or get_exposure_ccd_functional_use, and 'CCD'/'PUC' acronyms are left unexplained.

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?

There is no indication of when this tool should be chosen over the many other exposure/CCD siblings (e.g. get_exposure_product_data, list_exposure_product_puc). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named — the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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