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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'basic' and checks 'known high-risk combinations,' implying a limited scope. However, it does not describe output format, response structure, or how input is processed beyond 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical caveat and a clarifying statement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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 is simple with a single parameter and no output schema, but the description still leaves gaps. It does not describe what the result looks like (e.g., a risk level, a list of interactions), which would be helpful for an agent to know what to expect. Overall it is minimally viable but not fully 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?

The schema already provides a complete description for the 'drugs' parameter (comma-separated drug names, min 2). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Basic drug-drug interaction risk check' and 'Checks known high-risk combinations.' This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling tools like adverse_event_report or icd10_lookup.

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 by labeling it an 'educational tool' and explicitly excluding clinical use. It does not name alternative tools or provide a positive 'when to use' statement, but the limitations are clearly communicated.

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