search_msds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It discloses that the result contains a chemId and that get_msds should be called with it, providing useful workflow context. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether multiple results are returned, or any other behavioral specifics.

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 the purpose and the follow-up action without any wasted words.

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 only two parameters, the description covers the search types and the workflow via chemId. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, it falls short of fully specifying the return shape or result multiplicity, though it is adequate for basic navigation.

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 provides complete descriptions for both 'query' (substance name or CAS number) and 'byCas' (whether to search by CAS). The description adds no new parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'MSDS chemical search' with a specific verb (search) and resource (MSDS), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on chemical substances. It also specifies search by name or CAS number, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it provides clear usage context by indicating this is the search step for MSDS data and instructing to call get_msds with the returned chemId. This implies a structured workflow, though it lacks explicit exclusions compared to sibling search tools.

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