dcl_find_msms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: no hits yield `status="not_found"`. It says nothing about which `.dcl` is used when file_path is null, nor about the shape of a successful result — and with no output schema that gap matters.

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?

Four short sentences with the lookup target front-loaded, followed by use case, RT semantics, and the not-found sentinel. Little waste; the structure is easy to scan.

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 six-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: tolerance parameters, the default file resolution behavior for file_path, and the successful return shape are all unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%: parameters carry only titles and defaults. The description explains precursor_mz and rt, but mz_tol, rt_tol, file_path, and top_n_peaks are undocumented in both schema and description — four of six parameters unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: look up MS/MS spectra matching a precursor m/z (optionally RT) from a `.dcl` file. This is clearly distinct from sibling dcl_parser (which parses the file) or library_match_feature, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete use case — verifying annotations by checking whether expected fragments actually appear — and explains that supplying RT disambiguates co-eluting peaks at the same m/z. It offers no when-not condition and never names an alternative tool such as verify_peak_annotation or pai2_inspect_peak.

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