searchMedications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a search operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not confirmed), pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with multiple matches. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key criteria examples. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's moderate complexity (search with 3 optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. It's complete enough to identify the tool but insufficient for optimal agent invocation without additional inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (code, form, name) as optional with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'criteria like code or name' but doesn't provide additional syntax, examples, or interaction details beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Searches for') and resource ('medications'), and specifies search criteria ('based on criteria like code or name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'getMedicationById' (retrieval by ID) and 'createMedication' (creation), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'generalFhirSearch' (a broader search tool) or other search tools like 'searchMedicationRequests' (different resource).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'getMedicationById' (for known IDs) or 'generalFhirSearch' (for cross-resource searches), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the search context but lacks explicit direction.

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