search_drug_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains core functionality (search, retrieve, filter) but omits details like whether the operation is read-only, the response structure, pagination behavior beyond the schema, and any rate limiting. The description is adequate but leaves gaps in understanding what the tool does beyond the obvious.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then specific use cases. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff. Highly efficient.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main filtering capabilities and common scenarios. It omits details about result format, error conditions, and pagination beyond schema descriptions. However, most use cases are covered, making it nearly complete for a search 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%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by contextualizing key parameters (e.g., 'hasBoxedWarning' as 'most serious safety warnings'), but largely restates schema descriptions. Baseline 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 tool searches FDA drug labeling information, listing specific content types (prescribing info, indications, warnings, dosage, active ingredients) and usage patterns (by setId, filtering with hasBoxedWarning, requesting specific sections). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that cover devices, adverse events, NDC, etc.

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 explicit usage guidance: retrieving by setId, filtering by hasBoxedWarning, and limiting response via sections. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the description's focus on drug labeling make the intended use clear. Could be improved by noting that adverse events should use search_drug_adverse_events.

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