get_drug_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context: it is a reference card, not medical advice, and it requires a Pro tariff. However, it does not disclose behavior when neither parameter is supplied, how failures are surfaced, or whether the data is freshness-limited.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the key output fields and then adds two short clarifying notes. It is efficient and free of redundant wording, though it could have included usage guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

The output schema and parameter schema cover the return structure and parameter meanings well. The main gaps are the absence of sibling differentiation and no statement about whether at least one of the two optional parameters must be supplied for a useful call. For a simple get-card tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description names data fields like trade name and INN but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's return value: a GRLS drug card containing trade name, INN, forms, holder, manufacturer, and status. It is specific about the resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings like search_drug or check_drug_registration.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the listed siblings. The description only mentions that it is a reference, not medical advice, and that it is a Pro tariff feature; it never explains what kind of query should be routed here rather than to search_drug, get_instruction, or check_drug_registration.

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