search_compound

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is for searching PubChem (implying read-only) and returns JSON with compound records, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or behavior when no results are found.

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 well-structured with a main sentence, a use cases section, and argument/return descriptions. However, the separator line and repeated 'Args:'/ 'Returns:' formatting add minor redundancy.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential return structure but does not cover pagination, error scenarios, or edge cases, which is notable given the lack of annotations.

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 'query: Compound name or description' and 'limit: Maximum results (1-50),' adding meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types, though it omits the default value of 10.

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 'Search PubChem for chemical compounds,' specifying the verb ('Search') and the resource ('PubChem for chemical compounds'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_compound_details' that likely retrieve specific compound details.

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 lists use cases (e.g., 'Look up drug/compound information') but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unified_search' or 'get_compound_literature,' nor does it mention when not to use it.

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