get_drug_adverse_reactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only mentions the data source (FDA labels) but does not describe the return format, handling of missing drugs, pagination behavior, or any constraints. The 'get' verb implies read-only but adds no deeper behavioral insights.

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 that directly states the purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 annotations or output schema, the description is minimal and leaves out important behavioral details, such as what the returned 'adverse reactions information' looks like, how many records are returned, or how it compares to sibling tools. For a simple getter it is minimally sufficient but clearly incomplete.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context by noting 'specific drug' and 'from FDA labels', but it does not clarify the behavior of the limit parameter beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the detailed parameter semantics.

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 identifies the action (get), the resource (adverse reactions information), the specific target (a specific drug), and the source (FDA labels). It naturally differentiates from sibling tools like get_drug_warnings and get_drug_indications.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_drug_labels or ae_pipeline_rag. The description only states what it does, not the preferred context or scenarios to avoid.

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