get_chemical_uses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation is read-only via the '[tier: readonly-owner]' tag and mentions it maps to POST /chemicalUse/get, which provides context about the underlying API. This is useful, but the tier notation is not fully explained and potential failure modes (e.g., exceeding 1000 IDs) are not mentioned.

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 entire description is two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core behavior; the second adds endpoint and tier information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple bulk-fetch tool with one param and no output schema, the description provides essential details: the operation, the ID limit, and read-only nature. It lacks a direct mention of the alternative search_chemical_uses, but that is secondary. The tool is adequately specified.

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 zero descriptions for the single parameter, so the description must clarify semantics. The phrase 'for up to 1000 IDs' explains the array's purpose and adds a cardinality limit, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not name the parameter explicitly or describe the element type, though the schema covers that, so it is sufficient but not extensive.

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 ('Get'), specifies the resource ('full chemical-use records'), and states a clear scope ('up to 1000 IDs'). It also distinguishes itself from search_chemical_uses by indicating this is a direct ID-based retrieval for complete records.

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 usage when you have specific chemical-use IDs and need full records, and the 'up to 1000 IDs' constraint sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling search_chemical_uses or state when NOT to use this tool, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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