Get Compound Safety

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint (true), idempotentHint (true), and openWorldHint (true), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that data comes from PubChem depositors with source attribution, providing some extra context, but does not elaborate on other behaviors like rate limits or data freshness. Thus, moderate additional value.

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 two sentences: the first states the main action and data, the second lists specific returned elements and source. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

The description explains what data is returned (signal word, pictograms, etc.) and notes source attribution. Given the output schema exists (implied) and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete. However, it does not explicitly state that results are per compound or the limit of 25 CIDs (though these are in the schema). Still, it provides enough context for effective use.

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 input schema covers the only parameter (cids) with a description including usage hints (resolve from names/SMILES). The tool description itself does not add parameter details beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves GHS hazard classification and safety data for compounds by CID, listing specific data types (signal word, pictograms, H-codes, P-codes). This is distinct from sibling tools like pubchem_get_compound_details (general info) or pubchem_get_bioactivity, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies use for safety data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The parameter description mentions resolving names with pubchem_search_compounds, but no broader context on tool selection is provided, leading to a score of 3.

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