check_food_drug_interaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details an agent contract specifying using structuredContent as source of truth, preserving fields, and not inferring facts. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose any prerequisites or side effects.

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, no unnecessary words. The first conveys purpose, the second an important behavioral contract. No 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?

Tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The agent contract covers result handling. However, missing parameter guidance for drug_name and lack of usage context reduce completeness slightly.

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 coverage is 67%, with locale and output_format described. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; in particular, the required drug_name parameter is left without semantic context beyond its name.

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 checks for food-drug interactions for a specific drug. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_drug_interaction (drug-drug) and check_multi_drug_interactions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for similar purposes, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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