搜索 DDInter 药物

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions an experimental endpoint, failing to disclose typical behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on no results.

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 sentence, making it very concise. It is front-loaded with the key action, though could benefit from slightly more structure or additional details without becoming verbose.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the search scope, result format, or any limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.

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 has 100% parameter coverage with no description, but the tool description adds that the query searches for drug candidates and DDInter IDs, providing basic context. However, it lacks format, constraints, or examples to fully compensate.

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 action (search) and the specific resources (drug candidates and DDInter IDs) via an experimental endpoint. It distinguishes from the sibling tool ddinter_check_interactions by focusing on search rather than interaction checking.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ddinter_check_interactions. The mention of 'experimental' hints at limitations but does not offer explicit usage context or exclusions.

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