search_reaction_steps

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Search extracted reaction steps', which implies a read operation, but omits details on pagination (limit and token parameters), side effects, or how filters combine. The agent lacks information about potential behaviors like result ordering or threshold effects.

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, well-formed sentence of 9 words – very concise. It front-loads the core action. However, it might be too terse to fully clarify usage; still, it avoids fluff and 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?

The tool has 7 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no annotations, but has an output schema. The description only covers the general search concept, lacking details on combining text and structured filters, the nature of the query (full-text? exact?), and pagination behavior. Given the complexity of a search tool with multiple filters, this is insufficient.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'text and structured condition filters' which hints at parameters like query, reagent, and solvent, but does not explain the exact role of each parameter (e.g., how 'query' interacts with fields, or that 'limit' and 'token' control pagination). This adds moderate value but leaves gaps.

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 'Search extracted reaction steps by text and structured condition filters' clearly states the tool's purpose: it searches for reaction steps using both a text query and structured filter parameters (reagent, solvent, etc.). The verb 'Search' is appropriate, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'get_reaction_step' (retrieves by ID) and 'semantic_search_reaction_steps' (likely a different search method).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'semantic_search_reaction_steps', nor does it specify when not to use it. Given the extensive sibling list (31 tools), explicit usage context would help the agent choose correctly.

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