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 behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level purpose and does not disclose that the tool can return multiple records (as suggested by the 'limit' parameter), the structure of the response, or any error behavior. The 'from FDA labels' detail adds source context but no operational transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without any extraneous wording. It is concise and well-structured, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the absence of an output schema and annotations places a higher burden on the description. The description does not explain that the tool returns potentially multiple records (the 'limit' parameter implies this), nor does it describe the return format or any limitations. This leaves gaps for an agent trying to predict the tool's behavior.

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%, with both 'drug_name' and 'limit' already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. There is no missing parameter information that the description needs to compensate for.

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's function: 'Get indications and usage information for a specific drug from FDA labels.' The verb 'Get' is specific, the resource ('indications and usage information for a specific drug') is well-defined, and the source ('FDA labels') adds context. The tool is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_drug_adverse_reactions and get_drug_warnings, which target different data categories.

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 the tool is used when seeking indications/usage for a specific drug, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_drug_labels or ae_pipeline_rag. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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