get_drug_rules

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and the description adds that the tool is a curated subset, not exhaustive, and the official source is authoritative. This provides useful context beyond annotations, though no additional detail on rate limits or pagination is given.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then listing filters, usage guidance, and a disclaimer. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 read-only listing tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, required filters, use cases, alternatives, and the curated nature of the data. An agent has sufficient information to decide when and how to invoke the 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 baseline is 3. The description adds the important constraint that at least one of the three filters must be provided, which is not captured in the schema's required list. This adds value, though it mildly contradicts the schema indicating no required parameters.

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 starts with 'Look up Taiwan NHI drug payment rules' providing a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the tool returns reimbursement status with severity and citation, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like lookup_drug for identifying specific drugs.

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 clearly states when to use: 'when an agent is checking whether a drug choice will trigger a rejection before submission, or wants to read the rule behind a known rejection code.' It also explicitly says when not to use and names alternative tools (lookup_drug, lookup_audit_clauses_for_procedure, lookup_audit_clauses_for_specialty).

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