rxnorm_ingredients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it 'Returns ingredient RxCUIs and names,' which is consistent and provides additional context about the output. No contradictions or missing critical behaviors.

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 and well-structured: a single sentence stating the main purpose, followed by a bulleted list of use cases and a brief output note. Each sentence provides value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return values. However, it omits details about error handling (e.g., invalid RxCUI) or empty results. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap, but sufficient for most agents.

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% (one parameter rxcui described as 'RxCUI of the drug'). The description mentions 'by RxCUI' but does not add new semantic details beyond confirming its use. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles the parameter documentation.

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: 'Get active ingredients for a drug by RxCUI.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the bullet points further clarify distinct use cases (e.g., check single vs. multiple ingredients, identify generic components). This differentiates it from sibling tools like rxnorm_classes or rxnorm_concept.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios via bullet points (find active ingredients, check single/multi, identify generics). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the examples cover common cases well. Lacking exclusion criteria, but the guidance is clear for typical use.

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