search_chemical

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 and repeatability profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the key types searchable and nothing about match behavior, result caps, or output shape, so it clears the lowered bar but adds little.

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; the key types come immediately. It is short but arguably under-informative rather than padded, so it earns 4 rather than a perfect score.

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 schema fully documents both inputs. What is missing is routing context against sibling search tools and any indication of result scope or limits, leaving the definition adequate but not complete for a two-parameter search entry point.

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 parameters are documented in the schema, including the search_type enum values (equals, starts-with, contains) and the 'contains' default. The description's mention of 'CAS-RN, or other identifiers' loosely hints at valid query content but adds no syntax or matching detail beyond the schema, so 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 (search) and resource (chemicals) and enumerates the searchable key types (name, CAS-RN, other identifiers), so an agent knows what it queries and how. It does not differentiate from close siblings like batch_search_chemical or resolve_chemical_identifier, which is what keeps it from a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus batch_search_chemical (bulk queries) or resolve_chemical_identifier (identifier normalization). There is no mention of prerequisites, result limits, or exclusions, so the agent must infer selection from tool names alone.

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