faers_coreported_drugs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds substantial domain-level behavior: the count is taken at any role and cannot be restricted to suspect substances, producing a list skewed toward concomitant medication. This is real interpretive value not available in the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the most important caveat is front-loaded right after the core statement. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's burden. For a six-parameter analytical tool, the description supplies exactly the missing piece an agent needs, the co-reported vs co-suspect distinction, and nothing extraneous.

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%, with every parameter (top_n, events, date_from/date_to, drug_name, raw_filter) documented in the schema including formats and pairing constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (substances most often appearing on the same reports as an index drug) and immediately disambiguates the semantics with 'Co-REPORTED at any role, not co-suspect'. This distinguishes it from a naive suspect-based co-occurrence reading, which is the main confusion risk with siblings like faers_disproportionality.

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 gives a clear condition and an implicit warning: the output 'is dominated by concomitant medication', so the agent knows the tool cannot answer suspect-only questions. It does not, however, name the alternative tool to use when suspect-restricted analysis is required, leaving that inference to the agent.

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