check_drug_interaction

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

No annotations provided, but the description adds significant behavioral context through the 'Agent contract,' requiring use of structuredContent and preservation of specific fields. It clarifies the role of the agent and constraints on data handling, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or other operational limits.

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 two sentences: one for purpose and one for agent contract. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though the agent contract is somewhat detailed but necessary.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains the purpose and output handling but does not describe the content of interactions (e.g., severity, mechanisms). The output schema likely covers return structure, so this is acceptable but leaves some gaps.

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 50%, but the description adds no extra meaning for parameters 'drug1' and 'drug2.' It does not clarify their format or expected values (e.g., drug names or codes). Locale and output_format have schema descriptions, but the tool description fails to compensate for the missing param documentation.

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 'Check for interactions between two drugs,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_multi_drug_interactions' and 'check_food_drug_interaction' by focusing on exactly two 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 'Agent contract' provides guidance on handling the output but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_multi_drug_interactions' or 'check_food_drug_interaction.' Usage context is implied, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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