Drug-Food Interactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the types of interactions checked but does not disclose output format, errors, or any processing details. This aligns with the calibration example of get_calls, scoring mid-level.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource and lists all three checks efficiently.

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?

With no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is under-specified. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics for foods_or_supplements, and return value expectation, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 explicitly mentions 'medications' as a list, but the second parameter 'foods_or_supplements' is never described, and the description does not explain input format, required vs optional, or example values. This leaves a significant gap.

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 tool checks a list of medications for food-drug interactions, nutrient depletions, and timing-critical dosing requirements. This specific verb-resource-scope combination distinguishes it from the sibling drug_safety tool, which likely covers broader drug safety.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (checking interactions with food/supplements) but does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternatives like drug_safety. Absence of when-not-to-use guidance keeps it at baseline.

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, and the description adds context about 'food-drug' safety, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what the profile includes, potential output details, or any limitations. With annotations already covering the read-only nature, this is adequate but minimal.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core function without waste.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description explains the basic purpose but lacks details on return format, contents of the safety profile, or error conditions. Given the low schema/annotation richness, the description should provide more context to be complete, but it does not.

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 parameter meaning. It only states 'single medication', which clarifies that the parameter is a single medication name but does not specify expected format (e.g., generic vs brand name) or any constraints. This is insufficient for full understanding.

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 it returns a food-drug safety profile for a single medication, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource. It implies scope but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'check_interactions', which likely handles multi-drug or other interaction checks.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus 'check_interactions'. The description only mentions 'single medication', which hints at use cases but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions.

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