curate_thermophysical_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: a full audit trail and the guarantee that it 'never silently removes a record.' That non-destructive policy is exactly the kind of context annotations would normally supply. It still omits what 'triage' actually produces (flags? quarantine?) and any permission or performance notes, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action list before the field guidance; every sentence carries information. Slightly list-like in the middle but no padding or repetition.

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 record format is well covered. But for a 3-parameter, 0%-coverage, annotation-free tool the description is silent on the two optional parameters, the scoring criteria, and what triage emits, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document the record payload well (smiles, property, value, unit, plus strongly recommended provenance fields). However, model_check and relative_deviation_threshold are left entirely unexplained, including what the 0.25 default tolerance governs, so two of three parameters remain opaque.

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 four specific operations (normalize, deduplicate, score, triage) on a concrete resource (thermophysical records), plus the audit-trail outcome. No sibling tool (inspect_molecule, predict_jrmpnn, estimate_umansysprop) overlaps with curation, so the function is unmistakable.

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: it is clear this is the pipeline step for cleaning raw records, and it tells the agent what a well-formed record looks like, but it never says when to reach for this tool versus the prediction siblings or what prerequisites (e.g., valid SMILES) must hold.

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