rxnorm_concept

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the type of information returned (full name, synonyms, status, related concepts) and the effect of the include_related parameter. No contradiction with 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 concise, with a clear opening statement and bullet-pointed use cases. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or extraneous content. Well-structured for quick parsing.

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 that an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description adequately covers usage scenarios and expected information. It could mention additional details like pagination or error handling, but the presence of the output schema mitigates the need. Fairly complete for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (rxcui and include_related). The description reinforces the meaning by providing an example ('like "161"') and mentioning related concepts, but does not add substantial new information 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 it retrieves detailed information for a single RxNorm concept by RxCUI, listing specific use cases like getting name, synonyms, status, and related concepts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rxnorm_search (search) and rxnorm_ingredients (list ingredients).

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool ('Use this tool to:') with concrete purposes, providing clear context. While it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, the sibling list implicitly guides selection, e.g., use rxnorm_search for searching.

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