Get Medication Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's addition of return fields and 'FREE tier' provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradictions. Could mention any rate limits or response size, but not necessary for a simple query.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence lists all return fields in a clear, scannable format, and the second adds the 'FREE tier' note. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (drug class, MOA, formulations, etc.). It mentions 'at-a-glance cautions' to set expectations. Could be improved by noting the response structure or whether results are paginated, but not critical.

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 covers the parameter (100% coverage), but the tool description adds examples (e.g., 'tirzepatide', 'Ozempic') and clarifies that the input can be a name, id, or alias, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'returns' and specifies the resource: drug class, mechanism of action, formulations, candidate profile, cautions, and schedule. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_medication_list (list) or get_dosing_protocol (specific aspect).

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 should be used when comprehensive medication details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools for specific aspects (e.g., check_contraindications for deeper contraindications).

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