drug-intel

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (openFDA), that no API key is needed, and lists the types of data returned. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or other potential behavioral traits.

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 with four sentences, front-loading the main capability. No redundant information. Slight space for improvement by merging related points.

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 return values (labeling, adverse event summary, recall history) and mentions the input type. Although lacking detailed structure, it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity. No output schema exists.

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?

Both parameters have descriptive schema comments. The description adds marginal value by confirming drug_name accepts brand or generic names, but this is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 retrieves FDA drug intelligence including labeling, adverse events, and recalls. It specifies the input type (brand or generic name) and data source. The purpose is distinct and easily understood.

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 mentions use cases like pharmaceutical research and drug safety due diligence, but does not explicitly provide when to use vs. alternative tools or when not to use. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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