resolve_drug_to_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral nuance: it searches brand/generic name fields directly rather than label prose, avoiding false matches. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, mention any permissions/rate limits, or describe error behavior. For a read/search tool this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. The second sentence provides crucial context about matching behavior without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema (which covers return structure), and the absence of annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a key behavioral detail. It doesn't explain edge cases like multiple application numbers or how the limit interacts with output, but these are partially covered by the schema and are not critical for a resolver tool.

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 both parameters (drug_name and limit) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond restating that drug_name is brand/generic and giving examples already present in the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('brand or generic drug name to its NDA/BLA application number(s)'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing direct field search rather than label prose, which sets it apart from search_drug_label and aligns with lookup_drugsfda_application.

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?

It clearly states the intended use case ('Bridges drug-name-only sources... to FDA regulatory metadata') and implicitly distinguishes from label-prose searching by noting that mentions in prose won't produce false matches. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, 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.