查询 DDInter 相互作用

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only notes the endpoint is 'experimental', but fails to disclose error handling, rate limits, or data reliability. For a query tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, under 20 words, with no redundant information. The purpose is front-loaded and efficiently communicated.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not hint at return format or structure. It also misses connection to sibling tool ddinter_search_drug, which may be a prerequisite. The tool's experimental nature is mentioned but no completeness on workflow.

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 0% for parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'drug IDs' but does not explain format, source, or validation rules. The array constraints are already in the schema, so the description adds minimal value.

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's function: querying interactions, dietary restrictions, and duplicate medication reminders for 2 to 5 drug IDs via the DDInter experimental endpoint. It specifies the resource (DDInter) and the scope (2-5 IDs), and implies differentiation from the sibling tool ddinter_search_drug.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description mentions 'experimental' but does not clarify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusion scenarios. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

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