drug_rxnorm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the NIH RxNorm source and public domain status, which adds useful context about data provenance. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like (especially important since there's no output schema).

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 - two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence covers the core functionality, and the second provides important source attribution. No wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) 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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the core functionality well but doesn't describe the response format, error handling, or operational constraints. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally provide more information about what the tool returns.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds some value by mentioning 'normalized terminology (RxCUI)' which clarifies what the drugName lookup returns, and 'clinical drug-drug interactions with severity ratings' which provides context for the checkInteractions parameter. However, it doesn't add significant semantic information beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('look up', 'check clinical drug-drug interactions') and resources ('drug in NIH RxNorm', 'normalized terminology (RxCUI)'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like drug_lookup and drug_interactions by specifying the NIH RxNorm source and mentioning both terminology lookup and interaction checking capabilities.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool - for drug terminology normalization and optionally checking interactions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., drug_lookup or drug_interactions), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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