search_chemical_uses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the read-only nature via '[tier: readonly-owner]' and the return type ('matching IDs'), which are useful behavioral facts. However, it does not describe pagination, filtering behavior, or any side effects, leaving gaps for a search tool.

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 a single, focused sentence followed by the endpoint and tier. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide more context to be complete. It mentions return of IDs but omits any details about the six optional filters, response format, or usage constraints. For a search tool with this many parameters, the description is under-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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. The six parameters (officeIDs, chemicalID, customerID, includeData, appointmentID, chemicalUseIDs) are left entirely to the schema, with no explanation of how they relate to the search or what includeData does. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 searches records of chemicals applied on appointments and returns matching IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_chemicals (chemical catalog) and get_chemical_uses (retrieve all records), and the specific verb-resource pair is 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 usage as a search/filter operation by saying 'Search records' and 'return matching IDs', but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., get_chemical_uses for all records) or state when to prefer this tool. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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