search_drug

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It adds useful context: the tool is a reference lookup, not medical advice, and is tied to the Pro tariff. However, it does not disclose matching behavior, authorization requirements, or rate limits; search is inherently read-only so the gap is moderate.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the search scope first, then the informational caveat, then the tariff restriction. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The main missing element is explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like check_drug_registration.

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 documents both parameters. The description essentially restates that query is a search string by trade name or INN and does not add meaningful detail 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 states a specific action — searching the GRLS registry by trade name or INN — which clearly identifies it as a search tool. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like check_drug_registration, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage: search when you have a trade name or INN. It adds useful context that the result is informational rather than medical advice and that the Pro tariff applies, but it gives no explicit exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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