orchestrator_check_drug_interactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool queries three sources and returns live evidence with dates, indicating current data. However, it does not mention potential delays, partial failures, or other behavioral traits. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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, with four sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage, the third highlights a benefit (current data), and the fourth provides a prerequisite. No unnecessary 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?

Given the complexity (three sources, real-time) and no output schema, the description should explain what is returned more thoroughly. It only says 'live evidence with dates,' which is vague. It also doesn't describe the format or structure of the output, leaving gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising to use generic names for new_drug and by noting that providing more patient_context yields more specific analysis. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: checking drug interaction safety by querying FDA adverse event reports, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov simultaneously. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_drug_info (mechanism) and polypharmacy_risk (risk assessment).

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 when to call it: when a doctor wants to prescribe a new drug to a patient already on other medications. It also recommends calling get_drug_info first, providing a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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