search_drug_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is an external API-backed read that returns RxNorm concept information including RXCUI, which is useful beyond structured fields. It omits rate limits, authentication needs, and matching behavior, leaving clear gaps.

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 tight sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and follows with the return shape, making efficient use of the space.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the action, data source, and return fields. It falls short only by not addressing when to prefer this tool over its more specialized siblings.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both drug_name and limit fully. The description adds only that the search is 'by name' and does not elaborate on accepted name forms, the limit parameter, or result ordering. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Search for drug information by name using RxNav API.' It also names the return domain (RxNorm concept information including RXCUI). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other specific sibling tools like get_generic_name or get_brand_names, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The phrase 'by name' implies the input condition, but the agent receives no direction on when to choose this general search over the more targeted sibling tools. This matches the calibration for descriptions with no routing guidance.

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