atc_classify

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld hints. The description adds behavioral context: returns one entry per ATC code, explains single-ingredient vs combination products, and cites the data source (NLM RxClass). This complements annotations well.

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 brief, well-organized with bullet points, and every sentence adds value. No redundant information. The 'Use this tool to' section is clear and scannable.

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 tool has one required parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations are thorough, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter. It is complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 single parameter 'drug_name' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying it accepts brand or generic names and providing an example, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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: looking up WHO ATC classifications for a drug by name, with specific examples. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like atc_lookup or atc_members, but the focus on classification lookup is distinct enough.

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 lists three concrete use cases (find ATC code, identify hierarchy, cross-reference). It does not mention when not to use or explicitly compare to alternatives, but the use cases give clear guidance for appropriate scenarios.

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