get_uspi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return structure (structured labelling sections with LOINC codes) and the data source, which is beyond the annotation coverage. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful additional context about what the tool returns.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get FDA USPI') and then adds the return format. There is no wasted wording, and every clause contributes essential detail. This is an exemplar of concise, structured description.

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 simple read-only tool with two documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It explains the source, the return type, and the inclusion of LOINC codes. A minor gap is that it does not describe the exact JSON structure of the returned sections (e.g., whether they are keyed by LOINC code), but this is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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%, with both parameters (drug and sections) clearly documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it does not elevate the baseline of 3. It relies entirely on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('FDA US Prescribing Information (USPI) for a drug'), explicitly identifying the source (openFDA, DailyMed) and the return format (structured labelling sections with LOINC codes). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_smpc (European labels) without needing to name them.

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 implies usage for US drug labels via the 'US' and 'FDA' terminology, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_smpc for European labels) or provide any exclusion criteria. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of a clear when-to-use directive.

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