search_drug

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses fuzzy matching and ranking behavior, plus a tariff note ('Тариф Pro'). However, it does not mention response format, error conditions, or whether it is read-only. The output schema may partially cover return values, but the description could improve with more behavioral details.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. Every word adds value: fuzzy search, fields, ranking, bridge, and tariff. No redundancy or filler. Perfect structure for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (fuzzy search, ranking, bridge between INN and trade names) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It mentions the tariff Pro which is an important behavioral signal. Could be improved by explicitly stating that the output includes a ranked list of drugs with both trade and INN names, but the schema likely covers this.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds 'fuzzy' and 'ranking' context to the query parameter, which is already described in schema. For the limit parameter, no additional meaning is added. The description adds marginal 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?

Description clearly states it does fuzzy search of drugs by trade name or INN with ranking. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools which are registration checks, recalls, card retrieval, instructions, and price lookup. No ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While sibling tools are different, there is no explanation of prerequisites, limitations, or context such as 'use this when you need to find a drug by name or INN'. The description only implies usage through the search verb.

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