get_hazard_iris

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. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on IRIS data coverage, versioning, or what a 'chemical' lookup implies. With annotations carrying the safety burden, the description still contributes essentially zero extra 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 short sentence with zero padding, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. But against a very crowded hazard-tool family, the description does nothing to help an agent choose this endpoint correctly, leaving the definition incomplete for its decision role.

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 the single dtxsid parameter documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond 'for a chemical', so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the work and the description does not compensate or extend.

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 names a specific verb (retrieve), a resource (IRIS hazard data), and an object (a chemical), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling hazard tools (get_hazard_toxval, get_hazard_cancer_summary, get_hazard_genetox_summary, get_hazard_hawc, etc.), so an agent cannot tell from the text why it would pick IRIS over the alternatives.

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 to use this tool versus the other hazard endpoints, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling list is dense with overlapping 'hazard' tools, so the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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