check_drug_nutrient_interaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the query purpose and examples, but does not disclose output format, error handling, input constraints, or whether it is a read-only operation. The 'query' verb implies read-only, but this is not confirmed.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose with no redundancy. Every word contributes to meaning.

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 description gives a clear basic purpose and examples, but lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema may cover return values, but the description is minimal for a tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It references 'drug' and 'nutrient' but does not clarify that 'drug' is required, 'nutrient' is optional (with default null), or acceptable value formats. The examples of drug categories provide some context but are insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 action ('查询' / query) and resource ('药物与营养素的交互提示' / drug-nutrient interaction alerts), with specific examples of drug categories (phosphate binders, potassium binders, activated vitamin D, hormones). This distinguishes it from sibling nutrition/food tools.

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 versus alternatives. Although sibling tools are all nutrition/food-related, the description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred.

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