rxnorm_ndc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the mapping functionality, such as error handling or data freshness. A higher score would require additional disclosures.

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 three sentences: a clear summary line followed by a dash-list of use cases. Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff, and the key verbs and resources are front-loaded. Ideal conciseness for an AI agent.

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 low complexity (two optional parameters, read-only, and an output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the mapping purpose and the either/or input pattern. However, it does not address edge cases like providing both parameters or neither, nor does it mention NDC format variations. With an output schema present, return values are covered, so the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage, specifying 'RxCUI to get NDC codes for' and 'NDC code to look up RxCUI (alternative to rxcui)'. The description reinforces the mutual exclusivity ('Provide either'), but adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, listing two specific use cases: getting NDC codes for an RxCUI and finding an RxCUI for an NDC. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rxnorm_search or atc_lookup, which serve different coding purposes.

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 the agent when to use the tool: for bidirectional mapping between RxNorm and NDC codes. It instructs to provide either an RxCUI or an NDC. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or references to alternative sibling tools, though the unique purpose makes this less critical.

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