get_drug_rules

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is a 'Reference only' with a curated, non-exhaustive subset and external attribution (OPDSTAR), providing useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise (4 sentences), well-structured with bolded usage sections, and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It mentions 'with severity and source citation' but lacks detail on output structure. However, the purpose is clear, and the limitation (curated subset) is disclosed. Fairly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 value by noting 'at least one required' (though schema shows 0 required), and provides examples for drug_category_query (e.g., 'antibiotic', 'PPI'). This clarifies usage beyond the schema.

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 looks up Taiwan NHI drug payment rules, specifying the resource (drug class reimbursement) and the verb (look up). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting what it is not for (drug identification, audit clauses), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when-to-use: checking drug choice for rejection before submission, or reading rules behind a known rejection code. It also lists when-not-to-use and directs to 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.