get_drug_adverse_events

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, and the description's 'Retrieve' is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, output format, or any constraints beyond the annotation. Since the description does not enrich the annotation, it falls short of the lower bar set for annotated tools.

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, short sentence that is efficient and avoids fluff. However, it is almost too sparse, providing the bare minimum information. It is not a tautology and states a clear action, but it sacrifices detail for brevity, earning a mid-range score.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is still very incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes an 'adverse event signal,' how to properly supply chembl_id, or the meaning of pagination parameters. For a tool with a specific scientific domain, this level of context is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly, especially given the 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (e.g., chembl_id, page_size, page_index). The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of docs, leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings from names alone. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'adverse event signals associated with a drug,' which clearly distinguishes it from many sibling tools like get_drug_info or get_drug_literature_occurrences. However, it could be more explicit in differentiating from get_drug_pharmacovigilance, which might have overlapping semantics, so it doesn't fully achieve a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as get_drug_pharmacovigilance or get_drug_warnings. The description merely states the function without providing context, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-support information.

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