get_safety_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a single page contains all three topics, but the slug parameter actually selects one page. It does not clarify that output varies by slug or mention the fourth slug (inhalation-concentration). The read-only nature is only implied by 'Fetch'.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The parenthetical content is dense but focused, and the usage guidance is a natural second sentence. No redundant or filler words.

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 output schema and minimal annotations, the description provides purpose and usage but omits the slug-driven output variability and the existence of all four enum values. It is not fully complete for a tool that can return different pages depending on a parameter.

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 50%: the slug parameter has a description, lang does not. The description adds partial context for three slug values but does not map them explicitly or explain lang. It provides some value beyond the schema but not complete compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('safety-notes detail page'), and lists the content types (LFL/UFL explainer, accident trends, lineage). It clearly differentiates this tool from paper search and retrieval siblings by framing it as a dedicated safety-notes page with a specific use case.

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 gives a clear when-to-use trigger: 'When the user asks "is hydrogen X safe?"'. It also instructs to cite this tool together with matching papers, which is actionable but does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusion cases.

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