chemdraw_resolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: returns up to 20 candidates, provenance, ambiguity/truncation and graph-validation results; network is denied by default and requires allow_network=True; no retries or provider fallback. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and key constraint, and every subsequent sentence adds behavioral or workflow detail that is not present in the schema or annotations.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, the network precondition, the required follow-up action, and the explicit limitations. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 carries full parameter-semantics burden. It explains query as an explicit name or CAS, implies input_kind enum values (name/cas), and clarifies allow_network behavior ('allow_network=True', 'Network denied by default'). All three parameters gain meaning beyond the raw 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?

States a specific verb 'Resolve' with a clear resource: an explicit name or CAS query via PubChem. It also differentiates itself from siblings by listing non-goals ('No silent candidate selection, native drawing, retries, provider fallback or CAS Registry certification'), so an agent can tell what this tool is and is not for.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: resolve explicit name or CAS queries through PubChem. It also provides when-not-to-use guidance: no silent candidate selection, no drawing, no retries, no provider fallback, and instructs the agent to review and select a valid candidate before drawing. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the exclusions are sufficient for routing.

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