Drug-Food Interactions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool checks for three specific types of interactions, which provides some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail side effects, limitations, or data sources. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description adds moderate value.

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, concise sentence of 15 words that front-loads the purpose. Every word earns its place with no repetition or fluff. It efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list of interactions, severity), behavior for no results, or limits on list sizes. The relationship between medications and foods_or_supplements is unclear. Significant gaps remain.

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 for the parameters. However, it does not mention 'medications' or 'foods_or_supplements' at all. It fails to explain expected formats (e.g., drug names, supplement names), allowed values, or relationships between parameters. This leaves the agent without necessary guidance.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource 'medications'. It clearly states the scope: 'food-drug interactions, nutrient depletions, and timing-critical dosing requirements'. This differentiates it from the sibling tool 'drug_safety', which likely focuses on general drug safety issues.

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 description implies usage for checking medication interactions with food/supplements, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'drug_safety'. It lacks when-not conditions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Return' aligns but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No mention of return format, size, or limitations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant words, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

Despite simplicity, the description lacks completeness: it does not explain what the safety profile includes, how to specify the medication (e.g., generic vs brand), or what the output looks like. Given the sibling tool, more context is needed for differentiation.

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% for the single parameter 'medication'. The description does not add any meaning about the parameter, such as acceptable formats (generic name, brand name) or examples.

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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'food-drug safety profile for a single medication'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'check_interactions' by focusing on safety profile.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool 'check_interactions' suggests a potential alternative but no explicit usage context or exclusions are given.

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