search_spls

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 effectively describes key behaviors: the two search modes (simple vs. advanced), the indirect drug-first approach for simple queries, and pagination support for large result sets. It lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, but covers essential operational traits adequately.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise explanations of the two search modes and pagination support. Each sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 high parameter count (20), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining search modes and pagination. However, it lacks details on response format, error conditions, or authentication needs, which are important for a search tool with many parameters. It is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 all 20 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by explaining the high-level distinction between simple (using 'query') and advanced (using other parameters) modes, but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers, aligning with the baseline for high 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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for Structured Product Labels (SPLs)' using either simple drug name search or advanced DailyMed API parameters. It specifies the resource (SPLs) and distinguishes between two search modes, making it highly specific and differentiated from sibling tools that focus on individual data types like application numbers or drug names.

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 on when to use different modes: 'When using simple query, searches for drugs first then finds related SPLs. When using advanced parameters, queries DailyMed SPLs API directly.' It implies usage scenarios but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling search tools (e.g., search_drug_names) or list exclusions, which prevents a perfect score.

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