bc_get_available_pharmacologic_classes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (dict) and structure (class_type, field, available_classes, total_found/error). However, it does not mention if the operation is read-only or any prerequisites. The behavioral info is partial.

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 concise at three sentences, with the purpose stated first. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage hint, and return format. No redundant or missing information, though minor trimming could be possible.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the return structure and guidance to use first. However, it could elaborate on the source (FDA database) or typical use cases to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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?

Both parameters ('limit' and 'class_type') have comprehensive descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline. No extra elaboration on parameter usage is needed.

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 function: 'Get available pharmacologic classes from FDA database'. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and includes a usage hint. While it distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on pharmacologic classes, it could be more explicit about its unique role.

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 explicitly suggests a usage order: 'Call this first to see available options.' This provides context for when to use the tool, though it does not include when-not-to-use or alternative tools. The hint is valuable for task sequencing.

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