chebi_compound

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It helpfully states that the operation returns compound names, definitions, chemical properties, and cross-references, and gives an example ID. However, it does not disclose error handling, exact input normalization, or whether the operation is read-only, though 'query' and 'return' imply a read-only lookup.

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 English sentence is concise and front-loaded, with the Chinese sentence adding concrete return fields and use case. There is some redundancy between the two languages, but the overall size is appropriate and every key piece of information is present.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with an output schema available, the description covers the essential information: what input to provide, an example, and what kind of data will be returned. It lacks a reference to the related search tool and edge-case behavior, but the core invocation context is adequately complete.

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?

The input schema provides only 'chebi_id' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that this should be a ChEBI ID and gives the example 'CHEBI:15377 ATP'. This is helpful, though it does not specify whether bare numeric IDs are also accepted or whether the 'ATP' text is part of the identifier.

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 action: 'Query ChEBI compound by ChEBI ID' and elaborates with what is returned: compound name, definition, chemical properties, and cross-references. It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tool chebi_search, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context for use: when you have a ChEBI ID, supply it as input, and the tool returns compound information for chemical biology research. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives such as chebi_search, but the intended use case is clear enough to guide selection.

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