get_hazard_toxval

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the notion that the full (not summarized) ToxValDB record is returned, and says nothing about response size, pagination, or empty-result 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 efficient sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is not padded, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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?

Annotations and the output schema relieve the description of safety and return-value explanations, and the lone parameter is fully documented. Still, for a 'full hazard data' retrieval the description never characterizes what ToxValDB content is included or how it differs from the summary hazard tools, leaving a gap an agent might need to close.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('Chemical identifier (DTXSID)'), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about DTXSID format, case, or how to obtain one; 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 specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('full ToxValDB hazard data') scoped to a single chemical, which distinguishes it from its batch sibling batch_get_hazard_toxval and from other hazard endpoints (skin_eye, cancer, genetox). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource specificity is enough to place it.

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 phrase 'for a single chemical' implies the single-record counterpart of the batch tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance (e.g., that a DTXSID must first be resolved). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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