search_drug_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only adds the generic/brand nuance and the default limit (already in schema). It does not disclose output format, error behavior, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic search.

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 and includes a structured arg list, but the arg list largely duplicates the schema. Still, it is free of unnecessary filler and front-loads the core purpose.

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 is adequate for a simple search tool, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it over the sibling tool and does not address any access or output considerations. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the behavioral gaps hurt completeness.

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 compensates by explaining the meaning of drug_name with an example and specifying the default for limit, adding value beyond the bare 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 clearly states a specific action (search) and resource (OpenFDA drug labels), and mentions generic or brand name, distinguishing it from the sibling tool for adverse events.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (searching drug labels by name) but does not explicitly address alternatives or situations when the sibling tool should be used instead.

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