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

No annotations provided, so description fully bears transparency responsibility. Discloses that the tool is premium ($0.05/call), uses clinical-grade FDA data, and warns about hallucination risks. These behavioral traits are valuable for an agent to understand before invoking.

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?

Description is clear and front-loads the primary function. Includes relevant details (side feature, disclaimer, pricing) without excessive wordiness. Could be slightly more concise by removing the parenthetical about 'WebMD with a brain', but overall 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?

No output schema exists, so description adequately explains return values: severity levels, clinical description, and recommendation per pair. Also covers parameter constraints (2-10 drugs) and important context like data source and cost. Complete for a tool with one simple parameter.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'drugs' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the tool returns pairwise severity, clinical description, and recommendation, which goes beyond the simple schema description of '2-10 drug names'.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks pairwise drug-drug interactions for 2-10 medications and returns severity, clinical description, and recommendation per pair. The purpose is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which cover other domains like weather, stocks, or search.

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?

Explicitly suggests use cases: medication safety reviews, polypharmacy checks, or pre-prescription screening. Includes a disclaimer that it is not a substitute for licensed medical advice. Does not mention when to avoid using or provide alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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