get_drug_cross_references

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns cross-database identifiers, which gives some context about the output type. However, it does not disclose details like whether the identifiers come from specific databases, pagination, or error conditions, so it stays at a baseline 3 with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word is informative, and there is no wasted text. This is an ideal length for a simple tool.

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 a single parameter, a readOnly annotation, and an output schema present, the description is minimally sufficient. However, in a context with many sibling drug-related tools, it would benefit from adding what types of cross-references are included (e.g., PubChem IDs, InChI) to help an agent choose correctly. The current description is adequate but not rich.

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 carries the burden. It fails to explicitly mention that the input parameter `chembl_id` is a drug identifier, though it is implied by 'related to a drug.' The parameter name itself is self-explanatory, but the description adds little meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify format or expected values.

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 'retrieve' and a clear resource 'cross-database identifiers related to a drug.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_drug_info by focusing on cross-database identifiers rather than general information. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other identifier-related tools, so it is not a perfect 5.

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. There is no mention of specific situations, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users must infer from the tool name and description, which is not explicit enough for an agent to decide without ambiguity.

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