get_drug_safety_status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) are consistent with the description. The description adds specific details: it reports two types of status (additional monitoring and cancellation). No destructive behavior mentioned, and it aligns 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?

The description is short but includes both Turkish and English versions. The first sentence is in Turkish, then an English clarification. It is concise but the dual language might confuse; however, it remains efficient.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description adequately covers the tool's functionality: reporting two specific safety statuses. It does not need to explain return values due to output schema presence.

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?

The schema covers the parameter 'query' with 100% description coverage. The description adds 'Ad veya barkod' (name or barcode) which is redundant with the schema. However, it also provides the context of what the query is used for in the overall tool purpose.

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 explicitly states it reports TİTCK safety status for Turkish drugs, specifically additional monitoring and authorization cancellation. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_turkish_drug_info by focusing on safety-related status.

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 (TİTCK safety status) and input type (name or barcode). It implies use when checking drug safety or authorization status but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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