search_sds_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the source can return 100+ matches, describes the return fields in detail, and indicates sds_url is a direct PDF link. It doesn't explicitly mention read-only behavior, but search semantics imply it.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose—parameter explanations, usage tips, and return format—without unnecessary fluff. It is concise yet complete.

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?

Given no annotations and no siblings, the description provides all essential context: what the tool does, how to tune behavior, and what the response contains. The output schema exists but the description still enumerates return fields, making it self-sufficient for an AI agent.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently, explaining each parameter's purpose, default behavior, and rationale (e.g., include_synonyms 'match known synonyms', limit keeps responses manageable). This goes far beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states it 'Search for Safety Data Sheets (SDS) by chemical or product name' using a specific verb and resource. Even without sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from any generic search action.

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?

Provides practical guidance on when to use the flags: is_contains is 'useful for partial or misspelled names' and limit is recommended because 'the source can return 100+ matches.' It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but given no siblings, the context is adequate.

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