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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description is not responsible for safety semantics. It adds useful behavioral context by describing the returned record depth and noting that some plans read full records while others get an outline.

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 front-loaded with the triggering condition and then lists the relevant record contents efficiently. The final sentence about plans reading records in full versus as an outline is somewhat vague, but overall the structure is deliberate.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description thoroughly enumerates what the record contains: developers, targets, mechanism, indications, designations, patents, catalysts, and recent events. Combined with the fully documented single parameter and safety annotations, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, and the key parameter is already documented as the asset key or code name. The description reinforces the code-name format with examples, but adds little beyond the structured 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?

The description states a specific retrieval action for one drug or therapy program by name or code name, and enumerates the record facets it covers. The singular scope implicitly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings such as list_assets.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition: use when the user asks about one drug or therapy program by its name or code name. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_assets or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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