spraay_research_chemistry_compound

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description reinforces read-only and adds cost information ($0.002 USDC per call), which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with key info. Each sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists and the tool is a simple lookup, the description covers the essential: resource, methods, cost, and read-only. However, it could mention that the parameters are optional search criteria and possibly the response format.

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 descriptions are tautological ('cid parameter', etc.) and uninformative. The tool description mentions 'by name, formula, or CID' but does not explain the parameters' semantics or when to use each. With high schema coverage but poor descriptions, the tool description fails to compensate.

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 resource (PubChem compound) and the lookup methods (by name, formula, or CID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like spraay_research_chemistry_bioactivity and spraay_research_chemistry_similarity.

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 mentions cost and read-only nature but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. It implies use when you have a compound identifier but lacks exclusions.

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