get_drug_indications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the data source (FDA labels) and the type of content returned (indications and usage), but it does not explain behavior around the 'limit' parameter, error handling, or response format. This is adequate for a simple read operation but not rich in detail.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any redundant words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 simple two-parameter read operation, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the resource, and the data source. It does not specify the response shape or the effect of 'limit', but given the absence of an output schema and the basic nature of the tool, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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%, as both 'drug_name' and 'limit' have descriptive inline comments. The tool description aligns with the primary parameter 'drug_name' but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'indications and usage information' for 'a specific drug', clearly defining the tool's purpose. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_drug_adverse_reactions and get_drug_warnings by focusing on indications/usage rather than adverse events or warnings.

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 phrase 'for a specific drug' implies that the tool is intended for precise lookups when a drug name is known, contrasting with broader search tools like search_drug_labels. However, it lacks explicit statements about when not to use this tool or explicit naming of alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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