get_hazard_toxref

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the dataset enumeration but nothing about pagination, result size, rate limits, or whether the four dataset modes return materially different payloads.

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 the verb, resource, and valid inputs all in one pass. There is no filler or redundancy to trim.

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 a full schema, two enums, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the structured data carries most of the load. What is missing is routing context against the many sibling hazard tools and any indication of how the lookup types differ in behavior.

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% and both enums (dataset, lookup_type) are self-documenting. The description restates those same values rather than adding format details, such as what a valid DTXSID or study ID string looks like, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (ToxRefDB data), and enumerates the four dataset shapes (summary, data, effects, observations). This separates it from the other hazard siblings like get_hazard_toxval, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with batch_get_hazard_toxref.

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 lists acceptable lookup modes but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_hazard_toxval, the batch variant, or the other hazard summary tools. An agent must infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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