rxnorm_ndc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it performs a mapping between coding systems but does not significantly elaborate beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 5 lines, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points of use cases. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with complete annotations and output schema, the description covers all necessary context. The agent can fully understand purpose, usage, and parameter roles without additional information.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by stating they are alternatives ('either...or') and naming the specific direction of mapping for each. This helps the agent understand the relationship between parameters beyond the schema alone.

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?

Clearly states the tool maps between RxNorm and NDC codes. The description lists specific use cases: getting NDCs for an RxCUI, finding RxCUI for an NDC, and cross-referencing. This distinguishes it from siblings like rxnorm_search or rxnorm_concept, which do other things.

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 instructions to provide either an rxcui or an ndc parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context of sibling tools and the narrow mapping purpose imply its appropriate use. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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