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

No annotations provided, but description discloses important behavioral traits: premium cost ($0.05/call), use of clinical-grade FDA data, warning against hallucinated answers, and links to parent platform. It does not describe return format in detail but mentions key elements (severity, description, recommendation).

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 informative but includes somewhat verbose elements like the 'WebMD with a brain' tagline and a dramatic warning about hallucinations. Core functionality is front-loaded, but there is room for tightening.

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, but description adequately conveys what is returned (severity, description, recommendation). It covers input requirements, cost, data source, and usage context. For a simple one-parameter tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 one parameter 'drugs' described as '2-10 drug names (generic or brand)'. Description adds meaning by specifying that the tool checks pairwise interactions and returns severity, description, recommendation per pair, which is not in 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?

Description clearly states it checks pairwise drug-drug interactions for 2-10 medications and specifies returned information (severity, clinical description, recommendation). Distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning as a side feature of Symptia, and its focus on medication safety is unique among sibling tools.

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 states use cases (medication safety reviews, polypharmacy checks, pre-prescription screening) and provides a clear disclaimer that it is not a substitute for licensed medical advice. While no direct alternative sibling is mentioned, the tool's niche is well-defined.

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