chembl_drug_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the lookup-by-name behavior and the returned bioactivity fields, but it does not disclose edge cases such as ambiguous name matching, unknown names, pagination, or how include_targets affects the response.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core query statement appears first, followed by return details and use-case context. The bilingual repetition adds some redundancy, but the overall length remains appropriate and structured.

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 two-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and key return values. However, it is incomplete regarding the include_targets parameter and does not clarify whether name matching is exact or partial, or what happens when no matching compound is found.

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 explains the 'name' parameter via '按名称返回', and the output list implies target-related data, but it never explicitly explains the 'include_targets' boolean or what happens when it is set to false. One of the two parameters remains under-specified.

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 states a specific action ('Query drug/compound bioactivity') and a specific resource ('ChEMBL, EBI'), and enumerates the returned fields such as ChEMBL ID, SMILES, molecular formula, clinical phase, targets, and IC50/Ki. It clearly identifies the tool's function, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like compound_info or chebi_search.

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 clear usage context: 'for medicinal chemistry & target research' and '用于药物化学与靶点调研'. This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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