drug_alternatives_get_drug_alternatives

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

The description covers what the tool returns but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. With no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 with critical information front-loaded: purpose first, then return contents, then usage advice. Every sentence adds value without 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (brand names, generic names, side effects, etc.) and why each parameter is needed. It also relates to the sibling tool for drug interactions, making the context complete for an AI agent.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds context (e.g., 'needed to ensure the alternative also does not interact' for patient_current_medications) and suggests optional use of drug_class, enhancing clarity beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to get safer alternative medications when a dangerous drug interaction is found, distinguishing it from sibling tools like checking interactions or drug info.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool ('when a dangerous drug interaction is found') and suggests providing the drug class and condition for best results, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives.

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