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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data source and size (rs_medical, 76k rows) and that only summary columns are returned versus full records elsewhere. It does not mention read-only behavior, rate limits, or pagination caps (the latter is left to the schema).

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?

It is front-loaded with the search purpose, followed by the enum list and a return-scope note. The enumeration is long but earns its place by supplying values the schema omits. No filler sentences.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return scope (summary columns). However, the fields parameter refers to '返回列名' (returned column names) that are never defined anywhere, and it ignores the by_indication/by_target search siblings, leaving a modest completeness gap.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds real value by listing the full stage enum (临床前/临床I期/.../已撤市) that the stage_china and stage_global schema entries reference only as '精确匹配枚举值' without enumerating. This directly enriches two parameters 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 states a specific verb (检索/search) and resource (药品/drugs) and enumerates the searchable dimensions: drug name/English name/alias, drug type, global or domestic stage, and company. It is distinct from get_drug_detail by noting it returns summary columns. It does not differentiate from the search_drugs_by_indication or search_drugs_by_target siblings, keeping it from a 5.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: for full records use get_drug_detail, and states this tool returns summary columns. That is clear when-to-use context, but it omits the two other drug-search siblings (by_indication, by_target), which are natural alternatives an agent should weigh.

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