check_interactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that interaction data comes from established databases and is never generated or inferred, which is critical for understanding reliability. It does not cover potential side effects like rate limits, but those are less relevant here.

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 two paragraphs, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by clear constraints and interpretation. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool's complexity (interaction checking with 2-10 items, medical data source), the description covers input constraints, data source, and result interpretation. An output schema exists (though not shown), which likely covers return values, so the description is complete for agent decision-making.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input schema: it specifies the accepted count (2-10), types (drug names, supplement names, or both), and provides an example. Schema coverage is 0%, so this compensation is essential and well-executed.

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: 'Check interactions across a mixed list of drugs and supplements.' It specifies the verb (check) and resource (interactions), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_drug and search_drugs which handle individual lookups.

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 explains the input range (2-10 items) and the implication of an empty result (not found in databases, not proven safe). It does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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