unichem_structure

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does state that the tool returns a list of databases and identifiers registered in UniChem, which is useful. However, it does not mention input format expectations, error behavior, rate limits, or explicitly confirm it is read-only beyond the verb 'look up'.

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 short and front-lows the key operation in English, then the Chinese sentence adds return-value detail and purpose. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but not bloated; each sentence contributes either the operation or the output/purpose.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description gives the operation, the input key type, the output type (source/ID list), and a purpose. An output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be fully restated. It still lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling UniChem tool, which would improve completeness.

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 schema only defines 'inchikey' as a string with no description, so the description's clarification that the parameter is an InChI Key and the query is by that key adds meaningful semantic value. It could go further with format or example, but it sufficiently compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies a specific action ('look up') and resource ('compound cross-references via UniChem'), and specifies the input key. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'unichem_mapping', which likely overlaps in the UniChem identifier-mapping space.

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 Chinese phrase '用于结构与标识符验证' gives an implied use case, suggesting this is for structure and identifier validation, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance is provided. It relies on the user to infer the right context.

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