Search Prescriptions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns and imposes a parameter requirement, but it does not disclose default dataset behavior, pagination, error handling, or explicitly confirm it's read-only. Some behavioral traits are implied (search implies read) but not fully specified.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and immediately adds the key usage constraint and return details. Every sentence contributes value.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately indicates the return fields (items dispensed, quantities, costs). It also mentions the parameter requirement and available filters. However, it does not describe the list/response structure in more detail or note the default dataset and paging behavior, though some of that is in the schema. It is sufficient for a straightforward search tool but not exhaustive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level grouping of search parameters ('BNF code, drug name, practice code, or time period') but does not add significant depth beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions. The constraint on providing at least one parameter is a useful addition.

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 verb 'Search' and the specific resource 'NHS prescribing data from the English Prescribing Dataset (EPD)'. It enumerates the filters (BNF code, drug name, practice code, time period) and return fields (items dispensed, quantities, costs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spending trends or cost analysis.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to find prescription records. It also gives an explicit usage constraint ('At least one search parameter should be provided'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity relative to siblings.

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