unichem_mapping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states that the tool returns corresponding database IDs for an InChIKey and includes the list of databases, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as no-match results, multiple mappings per database, or whether the input must be a canonical InChIKey.

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 lead sentence states the core function concisely, and the Chinese sentence adds specific database examples and the intended use case. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but does not bloat the description.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema available, the description covers the input, the databases involved, and the purpose. It does not need to enumerate return fields, but a brief note about not-found or multi-mapping behavior would have made it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively identifies the single parameter as a 'standardized chemical identifier InChIKey' and explains its role as the query input. It could add exact format or normalization details, but for one simple string parameter the description is adequate.

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 ('Query') and clearly identifies the resource: compound identifier mapping across databases by InChIKey. It also names concrete target databases (ChEMBL/PubChem/DrugBank/ChEBI), which differentiates it from sibling compound-related tools such as unichem_structure or chembl_drug_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 an explicit use case ('for cross-database compound query and integration'), so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like unichem_structure or compound_info.

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