rxnorm_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by stating the return format (matching drugs with RxCUI, names, term types). It could elaborate on pagination or sorting but overall supplements annotations well.

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: a two-line summary, a bullet list of use cases, and a sentence on returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With annotations, output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description is largely complete. It could mention result ordering or error handling, but for a search tool, the provided information is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 searches for drugs in RxNorm, lists specific use cases (find by brand/generic name, look up medications, search formulations), and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like rxnorm_concept or rxnorm_ingredients which are more specific.

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 ('Use this tool to: ...') but does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternative tools. While sibling names imply differentiation, the description itself lacks exclusion guidance.

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