get_moa_slide_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. The description only describes the output format but not any side effects or constraints, leaving the agent uninformed about behavioral expectations.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from usage context. Overall, it earns its place without excess.

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 6 required parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and is a prompt generation tool, the description fails to provide sufficient guidance on parameter usage or when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. The presence of an output schema (not shown) partially compensates for return value clarity, but parameter semantics are critically underdocumented.

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 input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description itself provides no explanation of any parameter. The parameter names are self-explanatory (e.g., 'drug_or_class') but the description adds no additional meaning or syntax details. Baseline is 1 due to complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 tool generates a mechanism of action explanation for slide decks, specifies it should be 3-4 sentences in plain language for HCP education. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_slide_deck_outline_prompt' which serves a different purpose.

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 mentions suitability for HCP education slides, implying when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites or comparison with sibling tools, so usage intent is implied rather than explicit.

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