drug_info_get_drug_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It lists the types of information returned (drug class, enzymes, brand names, etc.) and gives usage context. However, it does not mention that the tool is read-only or if it has any side effects, but for a data lookup tool this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences plus an imperative instruction, all front-loaded with essential information. No 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?

The description covers purpose, usage sequence, and scope. Without an output schema, listing the types of information (drug class, enzymes, etc.) provides good completeness. Could be explicit about the exact return structure but is adequate for a lookup 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (drug_name) described as 'Drug name — generic or brand name accepted'. The description repeats this but adds context about what the tool does with the name. Baseline 3 since schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 gets comprehensive pharmacological information about a drug, listing specific details like drug class, enzyme pathways, brand/generic names, primary use, and common interactions. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it should be called first before check_drug_interactions.

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 says 'ALWAYS call this tool first before calling check_drug_interactions' and explains why (understanding mechanism helps determine which patient medications to be concerned about).

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