check_medication_safety

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description goes well beyond by disclosing the actual return behavior: a standard refusal to assess interactions (a doctor/pharmacist must check) plus deterministic checks for total daily paracetamol across products and biotin interference with lab tests. The fallback behavior when paracetamol_products is omitted is also disclosed, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by return behavior and parameter notes. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the parameter-level detail in the same paragraph slightly muddies the structure but nothing is wasted.

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 3-parameter, no-required-arg tool with an output schema, the description covers the trigger, the return semantics, the refusal caveat, and defaults for omitted parameters. It is nearly complete; minor omissions are the purpose of taking_biotin being stated only implicitly and behavior when no medication data exists.

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, and it largely does: it gives the paracetamol_products shape ({name, mg_per_dose, doses_per_day}), warns to include combination cold/flu remedies (a non-obvious edge case), and gives planned_tests format plus an example (['tsh','ferritin']). taking_biotin is only indirectly implied by the biotin-interference mention, leaving a small gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource and an explicit trigger scope ('Call for ANY question about medications: can I take X, combining drugs, doses'), then states what it returns: a standard refusal to assess interactions plus deterministic checks. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_medications and record_medication, which merely read or write medication data rather than answer safety questions.

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 strong usage context ('ANY question about medications') and explains a conditional behavior — if paracetamol_products is omitted, current medications are used instead. It also implicitly tells the agent this is not a substitute for medical advice via the refusal note. It lacks an explicit 'do not use for X, use sibling Y' exclusion, so it falls just short of a 5.

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