rxnorm_ndc

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

Annotations already define the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds the mapping behavior but does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations are disclosed.

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 very concise (two sentences plus a bullet list), front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (two optional params, mapping between systems) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the bidirectional mapping functionality. Could optionally mention output structure, but not necessary.

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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds key information on mutual exclusivity and the direction of mapping (provide rxcui to get NDCs, or ndc to get RxCUI), enhancing meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool maps between RxNorm concepts and NDC codes, lists specific use cases (get NDCs for RxCUI, find RxCUI for NDC, cross-reference), and distinguishes from siblings handling other terminologies.

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 tells when to use the tool (mapping between RxCUI and NDC) and how to provide input (either rxcui or ndc). It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with siblings, but the context is clear.

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