medical.rxnorm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: two modes, typos tolerated for term, ranked candidates, and related concepts for rxcui. It does not mention any destructive effects or rate limits, which are not expected for a lookup tool, but it is transparent enough.

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 concise, using three focused sentences. It front-loads the purpose, provides examples, and includes sibling context without superfluous 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 description covers the essential behaviors: two query modes, result types, and sibling relationship. It omits explicit mention that limit applies only to term mode, but for a lookup tool with no output schema, this is sufficient.

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 covers 67% of parameters (term and rxcui have descriptions). The description adds value beyond schema by explaining mode behavior, mutual exclusivity (XOR), and typo tolerance. The limit parameter lacks extra context, but overall the description enhances 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 the tool normalizes and verifies drug names against RxNorm with two distinct modes (term and rxcui). It explicitly mentions being a sibling of medical.icd10, differentiating from related tools.

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 provides clear use cases: 'verify drugs exist and get stable identifiers instead of trusting model memory.' It implies when to use it but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the sibling mention.

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