Drug Safety

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the 'merged' nature, suggesting aggregation from multiple FDA sources. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or how the merged workflow is coordinated. The description adds marginal value beyond annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and enumerates the core actions. Every phrase contributes to understanding, with no fluff. It is optimally concise for a multi-action tool.

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?

Despite the schema covering parameters 100%, the description fails to explain how the various actions work, what the output looks like, or how to combine them in a workflow. The openWorldHint suggests external data, but no output schema or description of return format is provided. For a tool with 9 parameters and multiple modes, the description is too short to give a complete picture, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. It merely lists the high-level workflow steps, which are mapped to the 'action' parameter's enum. No additional semantic context for parameters like 'serious_only' or 'age_group' is given.

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 it is a merged FDA drug-safety workflow covering four specific tasks: adverse-event search, signal detection, label review, and head-to-head comparison. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like drug_interaction_checker and the many gene/sequence tools, as it uniquely addresses multi-step drug safety analysis.

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 the tool is for combined drug-safety tasks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like drug_interaction_checker. The context signals (sibling list) and the name 'drug_safety' provide enough cues for an agent to select it for safety workflows, but a brief note on exclusion would improve clarity.

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