check_drug_registration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the output (status, number, date) and mentions 'Pro tariff' indicating a potential cost. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose any side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first defines the tool's output, the second specifies parameters and tariff. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (status lookup), the description covers the key output (status, number, date) and parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are further detailed there. Minor gaps include lack of clarity on handling multiple matches or resolution logic.

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 each parameter already has a detailed description. The tool description adds 'Задайте name, mnn или ru_number,' which minimally reinforces usage but does not add significant value beyond the schema.

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 checks drug registration status in GRLS (active/cancelled/suspended) and returns registration number and date. The verb 'check' and resource 'drug registration' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings like check_recall or search_drug.

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 tells users to provide name, mnn, or ru_number as parameters. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_drug_card for full details, check_recall for recalls), leaving the agent to infer from context.

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