Chemical Hazard Classification (GHS)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no mention of data freshness or error handling).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, key elements, and context. Every word contributes value.

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?

The description lists the key return components and mentions the data source and use case. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail structure further. Slightly more context on scope (e.g., only GHS) would elevate it.

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 input schema already contains a description for the cid parameter that matches the tool description. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not add new parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema.

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 the tool retrieves GHS hazard classification for a compound, listing specific elements like signal words, H-codes, P-codes, and pictograms. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like properties or structure by focusing solely on hazards.

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 implies usage for chemical safety assessments but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs. chemistry.pubchem.properties). No guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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