drug_interactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source ('OpenFDA FAERS') and that results are based on co-reported reactions, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention limitations like data recency, potential false positives, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'check' implies it is).

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: stating the tool's purpose, specifying the return values, and identifying the data source. No wasted words, and the most critical information is 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 moderate complexity (interaction analysis with 2-5 drugs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers purpose and source but lacks details about response format, error conditions, or limitations that would help an agent use it correctly.

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 the schema already documents the 'drugs' parameter requirements. The description adds value by specifying the purpose ('to check for interactions') and output details ('co-reported reactions and signal strength'), but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 specific action ('Check drug-drug interaction signals'), resource ('from FDA adverse event co-reports'), and output ('Returns co-reported reactions and signal strength'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like drug_lookup or drug_enrich by focusing specifically on interaction analysis rather than general drug information.

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 usage context through the mention of 'drug-drug interaction signals' and 'FDA adverse event co-reports,' suggesting this is for pharmacovigilance or clinical safety analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like drug_enrich or when not to use it (e.g., for single-drug queries).

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