get_cpic_drugs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (pharmacogenes, medications, levels, safety notes) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any authorization or data freshness. For a simple lookup table, this is acceptable but could be more explicit.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence defines what the tool returns, and the second provides the use case. There is no extraneous information, and the structure is clear 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns and when to use it. It does not mention pagination or data size, but for a basic lookup table, the description is largely complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter, which already explains its purpose and format. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond that, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 it retrieves the CPIC gene-drug interaction lookup table with specific fields (pharmacogenes, medications, clinical guidelines, safety notes). It also provides a usage context (identify drug interaction risks). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_all_pharmacogenomics or get_pharmacogenomics, which might return overlapping data.

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 includes a usage scenario ('Use this to identify drug interaction risks for a patient's metabolizer profile'), but it does not provide when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Given the sibling tools with similar purposes (e.g., get_all_pharmacogenomics), this is a gap.

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