Get comprehensive information about a supplement: what it is, what it does, which biomarkers it affects, mechanism of action, and safety contraindications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| supplement | Yes | Supplement name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the type of information returned (biomarkers, mechanism, safety) and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. With no annotations, this is adequate but not fully explicit.
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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get comprehensive information') and lists the key content areas, making it efficient and clear.
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 info-retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool does and what the user can expect to receive.
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 100% with a single parameter 'supplement' described as 'Supplement name'. The description adds context that the parameter is used to retrieve comprehensive info, but does not provide additional semantics beyond 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's purpose: 'Get comprehensive information about a supplement,' listing specific aspects (what it is, does, biomarkers, mechanism, safety). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_biomarkers_for_supplement' which are more focused.
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 this is the general info tool while siblings are more specific, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: searching for supplements or conditions, retrieving supplement info, interactions, biomarker mappings, top brands. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_noun' pattern with verbs 'get_' and 'search_', and nouns are appropriately plural or singular.
8 tools is well-scoped for a health supplement knowledge base, covering core queries without unnecessary complexity.
The tool set covers search, information retrieval, interactions, biomarker mapping, and brand quality, leaving no obvious gaps for a read-only reference server.