Screen Patient for Contraindications

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a non-destructive screening operation. It adds behavioral context by detailing the output format (verdict and findings) and noting the PREMIUM tier, which implies access or cost considerations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentence that conveys all essential information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and output. While concise, it could be slightly streamlined, but overall it is well-structured.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (verdict, triggering findings, clinical notes). It also implies the need for patient profile data. However, it lacks details on error handling or edge cases, which would improve completeness.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds semantic value by explaining how these parameters are used (screening against absolute/relative contraindications and drug interactions), which goes beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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: given a medication and patient profile, it screens for contraindications and interactions, returning a verdict (PASS, FLAG, REJECT) with specific findings and clinical notes. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_medication_details or check_drug_interactions.

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 mentions 'PREMIUM tier' but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_drug_interactions. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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