get_drug_adverse_reactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's function and source without detailing potential multiple records, matching behavior, pagination limits (beyond the schema), or any restrictions. This leaves the agent with insufficient information about how the tool actually behaves.

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 front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no superfluous information or repetition of the tool name.

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 and no output schema, the description should clarify the response format or behavioral nuances. It only says 'adverse reactions information' without specifying whether the response is a list, a structured object, or raw text, leaving the agent without adequate expectations.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. It does not explain how drug_name is matched or what limit controls in terms of output, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('adverse reactions information'), and the specific scope ('for a specific drug from FDA labels'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_drug_warnings and get_drug_indications, which target different aspects of drug labels.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need adverse reactions for a drug) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like search_drug_labels or get_drug_warnings. The intended use is clear from the context, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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