RxNorm Drug Ingredients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns ingredient RxCUIs and names, which is useful but not extensive behavioral disclosure (e.g., error handling, rate limits). This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 opens with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by concise use-case bullets and a return statement. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or padding.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema available, this description sufficiently covers input, purpose, and return type. The presence of the output schema means return values don't need further elaboration in the description.

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 schema description for 'rxcui' is complete ('RxCUI of the drug') and covers 100% of the parameter. The tool description reiterates 'by RxCUI' without adding new semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline for high schema 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('active ingredients') and input ('by RxCUI'). The use-case bullets clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like rxnorm_search and rxnorm_concept, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 bullet list provides clear scenarios (finding ingredients, checking single vs. multiple, identifying generic components of brand drugs), offering solid context on when to use it. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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