search_drug_labels

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does add real value by disclosing the returned sections, that text is trimmed, and that a DailyMed link is included. It does not state read-only nature explicitly, truncation limits, or how many matches come back by default despite the limit param.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and followed by what comes back. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 values need no deep explanation, yet the description still summarizes the returned sections usefully. Minor gap: the meaning of `limit` and result ordering are left unstated.

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?

'By brand or generic name' maps onto the required `drug` parameter and clarifies an ambiguity the bare schema leaves open (0% description coverage). However, the `limit` parameter is never mentioned, so half of the parameter set is unexplained beyond the schema's bare type and default.

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 (search FDA drug labels / package inserts) and the search key (brand or generic name). The enumerated returned sections make it clearly distinct from siblings like drug_recalls or get_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?

Usage is implied by 'search ... by brand or generic name,' but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_adverse_events, drug_recalls, or signal_check, and no noting of when not to use it. An agent must infer the routing itself.

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