compare_labels

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context by describing section mapping ('US Indications ↔ UK 4.1') and return shape ('paired content'), which is especially useful given there is no output schema. No contradiction with 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?

A single front-loaded sentence expresses both the operation and the return behavior with zero filler. The parenthetical example is compact and clarifies the section-mapping concept without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, mapping behavior, and high-level return type ('paired content'). It does not detail output formatting or handling of absent sections, but the schema and sibling tools fill most gaps, making it reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%: both 'drug' and 'sections' have descriptive schema entries. The tool description adds an illustrative mapped-section example but does not materially extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Compare') and identifies two concrete resources (US FDA PI vs UK/EU SmPC), with side-by-side section mapping. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like get_uspi and get_smpc.

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 comparative intent is evident, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not tell the agent to prefer get_uspi/get_smpc for single-label lookups, so usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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