search_compounds

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the searchable fields and resource, but not behaviors like case sensitivity, partial matching, or pagination behavior. Adequate for a simple search tool but lacks detail.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No extraneous words. Efficient and to the point.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain pagination, default behavior, or how to differentiate from sibling tools like search_by_smiles. Lacks completeness for effective agent use.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only explains the 'query' parameter (one of the search fields), but fails to describe 'limit' or 'token' (pagination). The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the 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?

Description clearly states the action (search), resource (compound registry), and specific search fields (name, CAS, SMILES, InChIKey). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_compound (retrieval by ID) and search_by_smiles (SMILES-only).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, does not mention that get_compound is for when you have a compound ID, or that search_by_smiles is more specific. Agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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