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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds the constraint of 'single medication' and specifies the food-drug domain, but it does not disclose return format or potential limitations. This matches the pattern from the TDQS 4.3 calibration example.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema. The description gives the core function but does not clarify what the 'food-drug safety profile' contains, how to handle unknown medications, or how it differs from check_interactions. It is adequate for a simple tool but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that the 'medication' parameter should be a single medication name, but gives no format, accepted identifiers (generic vs brand), or examples. This adds minimal value over the parameter name itself.

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 (Return), a precise resource (food-drug safety profile), and a scope (single medication). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_interactions, which likely handle multiple drugs, and get_protocol, which covers protocols.

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 phrase 'for a single medication' gives clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is not for multi-drug or general interaction queries. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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