search_cpdat

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the data is historical and enumerates the vocab domains – no notes on result volume, pagination, or how the required vocab_name affects return shape.

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. It is efficient, though the brevity is also what leaves usage guidance and sibling differentiation unaddressed.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema. What is missing is routing context against the many similarly named exposure tools, which the description never addresses.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents dtxsid, dtxsids (max 200) and the vocab_name enum. The description's domain listing mirrors the enum description rather than adding syntax or behavioral detail, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Search historical CPDat data ... for chemicals') and enumerates the three domain types, so the agent knows what is returned. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as get_exposure_functional_use or get_cpdat_vocabulary.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. In a toolset crowded with overlapping exposure lookups (get_exposure_functional_use, search_exposures, list_exposure_functional_use_categories), the agent gets no signal about which one applies here.

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