get_pharmacologic_class_details

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 states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., format, depth). The mention of 'FDA context and classification attributes' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-free tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage hints from core functionality.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error cases, or behavioral traits, which are crucial for a tool that retrieves 'detailed information.' The mention of 'FDA context and classification attributes' is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing context.

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%, with the parameter 'pharmaSetId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it fetches details for a specific ID, which aligns with the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value from the description.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a pharmacologic class'), specifying it includes FDA context and classification attributes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_all_pharmacologic_class_setids' by focusing on details for a specific ID rather than listing all IDs, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for similar detail tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'uses mapping file data,' but this is vague and doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts. Siblings like 'get_drug_details' or 'get_pharmacologic_class_mappings_for_setid' are not addressed, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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