rxnorm_concept

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main contribution is detailing the type of output (name, synonyms, status, related concepts). This adds useful behavioral context 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 concise, using bullet points and front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary fluff.

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?

For a simple lookup tool, the description covers the key purpose and outputs. It does not mention error handling for invalid RxCUI, but this is somewhat mitigated by the presence of an output schema. Overall, it is complete enough for effective use.

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. The description reinforces this with a concrete example ('161') and clarifies that include_related controls the inclusion of related concepts, providing additional practical meaning.

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 tool clearly states it retrieves detailed information for a specific RxNorm concept by RxCUI. It is distinct from sibling tools like rxnorm_search or rxnorm_ingredients, but does not explicitly differentiate itself, only implying uniqueness via the RxCUI identifier.

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 use cases (get name/synonyms, check status, view related concepts), but does not compare to alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance. The context of using with an RxCUI is implied, not explicit.

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