lookup_meddra

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation via 'look up' but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description is acceptable but lacks extra context beyond basic purpose.

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?

Two sentences, direct and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and outputs, the second provides context. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and usage context well. It mentions the key outputs (SOC, hierarchy, related terms) and domain. It could elaborate on edge cases like term not found, but overall is complete enough for a straightforward lookup tool.

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 term and include_synonyms are described in the input schema). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb (look up), resource (MedDRA Preferred Term), and what it returns (SOC, hierarchy, related terms). It also specifies the domain (adverse event coding, pharmacovigilance) which differentiates it from siblings like lookup_icd10 or lookup_ctcae.

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 context on when to use this tool (critical for pharmacovigilance and regulatory submissions) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like lookup_icd10 for other coding systems. However, the context is clear enough for an experienced agent.

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