resolve_chemical_identifier

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one real behavioral policy beyond that – ambiguous matches are not silently accepted, which ties to the allow_fallback parameter – but says nothing about what ambiguity yields (candidate list vs error) or how exact-match failure is surfaced.

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 no filler, and the determinism guarantee is stated up front. It is efficient, though the trailing clause is slightly awkward and could be split for clarity.

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, a rich annotation set, and an existing output schema, the description only needs to add purpose and behavioral policy, which it largely does. The remaining gap is the absence of guidance on when to prefer this tool over the many sibling chemical search/lookup tools.

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%, so every parameter including allow_fallback, max_candidates, and identifier_type is already documented in the schema. The description's phrase about ambiguous fuzzy matches loosely mirrors allow_fallback but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('resolve a chemical identifier') and adds a scope qualifier ('deterministically ... without silently accepting ambiguous fuzzy matches'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling search/get chemical tools such as search_chemical or batch_search_chemical, so an agent cannot confidently route between them from the text alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the emphasis on deterministic, non-fuzzy resolution hints this is for exact identifier lookup, but no when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or named alternative (e.g. search_chemical, opsin_convert_name, batch_search_chemical) is given. An agent must infer the routing decision.

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