RxNorm / NDC Mapping

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the detail that it returns 'all NDC codes' and supports cross-referencing, which is useful. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral nuances such as error handling or normalization behavior, so the value added beyond annotations is moderate.

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 one-sentence summary, a bullet list of use cases, and a clear input instruction. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential scenarios and input patterns. It does not need to explain return values, and it adequately covers the two main usage modes. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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 already describes both parameters (ndc and rxcui) with full coverage. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining the mutual exclusivity ('Provide either an RxCUI... or an NDC...'), which is not evident from the schema alone. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the structured definitions.

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 'Map between RxNorm concepts and National Drug Codes (NDC)' with specific use cases (get NDCs by RxCUI, find RxCUI by NDC). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rxnorm_search or rxnorm_concept, which focus on searching rather than bidirectional mapping.

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 use cases in a bullet list and states the input requirement ('Provide either an RxCUI to get NDCs, or an NDC to get the RxCUI'). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, as none of the sibling tools are referenced.

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