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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's read-only claim is consistent. It adds value by specifying that no data is stored, which is beyond the annotations, but does not elaborate on other behaviors like rate limits or query limitations. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds relevant input details and output summary. It is a single sentence that earns its place without excess. Minor improvement could be to separate the return details, but it's already well-structured.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no nested objects, the description is quite complete. It covers usage, inputs, output, and safety. It lacks some behavioral specifics like pagination or result limits, but these are unlikely given the nature of the tool. The presence of output details (severity, precautions) compensates for the lack of output schema.

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%, so both parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds the useful detail that names can be generic or Indian brand, which is slightly more specific than the schema's description. However, it does not go beyond that, which is acceptable given high coverage.

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 states a specific action ('check drug interaction') and resource (GoDavaii's database of 93,000+ drug pairs), and clearly differentiates from siblings by mentioning the database and read-only nature. It also specifies accepted inputs (generic names and Indian brand names), which is distinct from medicine_info.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (checking interactions between two medicines), and implies its role relative to siblings by being read-only and focused. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or why not to use an alternative, but the context is enough for an agent to decide.

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