wxoGetDrugInterations

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 discloses that the tool may return None, which is a behavioral trait, but it does not state permissions, side effects (read-only is implied but not explicit), or error conditions. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for full transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient, though it contains a typo ('inforamation') and could be more polished.

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?

With an output schema present, return value details are likely covered. However, the description does not mention interaction severity levels, required input format, or behavior when a drug is not found (except the implied None). For a simple tool, this is adequate but not 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 schema has no descriptions for the two parameters, and the description only rewords 'two given drugs' without adding specific format requirements (e.g., generic vs brand names) or clarifying edge cases. It adds little beyond the parameter names.

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 returns drug interaction information for two specified drugs. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('drug interaction medical information'), and the 'two given drugs' scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like drug information or contraindications.

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 when one has two drugs to check for interactions, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance that would be valuable given the sibling tools.

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