search_drug_ndc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'product details, active ingredients, and packaging information,' which is adequate for a read-only search. However, it omits details on pagination behavior, rate limits, or empty result handling, though skip/limit parameters are in the schema.

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?

Two sentences efficiently state the core purpose and searchable fields, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

The description covers the tool's main inputs and outputs, but given the lack of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, it could benefit from clarifying the specific use case (e.g., 'Use this for NDC-specific identification') or mentioning pagination. However, it is still reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the searchable fields but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already convey.

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 specifies the tool's action ('Search the National Drug Code (NDC) Directory'), the resource ('drug product identification'), and the searchable fields (NDC, brand name, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that target other FDA datasets.

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 lists searchable fields, implying use when identifying drugs by those attributes, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare to siblings like search_drug_labels or 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.