explain_interaction_mechanism

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds an 'Agent contract' specifying to use structuredContent as source of truth, preserve schema_version/status/sources/warnings/errors/meta, and never infer missing clinical facts. This instructs the agent on handling results beyond what the schema reveals, adding behavioral context.

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 two sentences plus a three-sentence agent contract. It is front-loaded with the purpose and necessary behavioral instructions. While concise, the agent contract could be slightly tighter, but it earns its place.

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 (mechanistic DDI explanation), no annotations, and an output schema covering return values, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, mentions simulation parameters, and provides data handling rules. It lacks prerequisites or limitations but is sufficient for an agent.

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% (drug1 and drug2 lack descriptions). The description mentions 'drug pair' covering those two, but does not further detail locale or output_format meaning beyond the schema defaults. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Explain the supported mechanistic DDI pathway for a drug pair, including required simulation parameters.' It uses a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('mechanistic DDI pathway'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_drug_interaction' (just checks existence) and 'simulate_pk_interaction' (simulates PK, not mechanism).

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 implies when to use the tool (for mechanistic explanation of a drug pair), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, given the self-explanatory name and sibling context, the guidance is adequate.

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