get_smpc

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by identifying the external data source and stating that it 'Returns structured labelling sections', which goes beyond the annotation safety profile. It does not detail error behavior or network dependency, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the action, scope, source, and output format in about twenty words.

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 tool is simple (2 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), and the description provides enough orientation: what it fetches, from where, and the general shape of the result. With no output schema, it would benefit from a bit more detail about the exact response structure, but the current level is adequate for a basic read-only lookup.

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%, and both parameters ('drug' and 'sections') are already documented with examples and defaults in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('UK/EU Summary of Product Characteristics'), a source ('eMC / medicines.org.uk'), and the return type ('structured labelling sections'). The 'UK/EU' and 'eMC' qualifiers clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_uspi, which targets US prescribing information.

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 use case is implied by the description: use this when you need UK/EU SmPC labelling for a drug. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_uspi for US labels, leaving some routing 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.