search_drugs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the response includes slug, kind, and fromPrice; foreignBrands carries matched home-country brands with active ingredients and US generic mappings; and the empty-results-plus-foreignBrands case signals a non-US medicine. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 tightly structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: primary behavior, return fields, slug usage, foreign-brand behavior, and the routing condition. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

For a read-only search tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential contextual decisions: how to use the returned slug, how to interpret foreignBrands, and when to escalate to find_us_equivalent. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It enriches the required query parameter by defining it as 'name or localized alias,' which is valuable. The optional limit parameter is not described, but its meaning and default are already provided in the input schema, so the gap is minor.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search FineRx for drugs by name or localized alias.' It explicitly frames the tool as the first step to resolve a drug name to a slug, and its reference to find_us_equivalent differentiates it from the sibling that handles foreign-brand mapping. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from get_drug and other siblings.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this first to resolve a drug name to a slug.' It also gives a concrete conditional rule for when to instead call find_us_equivalent: when results is empty and foreignBrands is not. This tells the agent not only when to use the tool but also when to route to an alternative.

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