list_formula_catalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions post-processing (preserve fields, don't infer) but omits details on safety (e.g., read-only nature), authentication needs, or performance implications. The agent contract is helpful but insufficient for complete transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences: one for purpose and one for the agent contract. It is front-loaded with the core function and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a straightforward list tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and a key behavioral instruction (preserve fields). However, it lacks context on output format variations or when the tool should be preferred over similar list tools like search_formulary.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions), but the description adds no parameter-specific information. The undocumented 'status' parameter is not explained, and the description does not clarify the meaning or usage of any parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states 'List trusted PK/DDI formulas available for simulation', which clearly specifies the action (list) and the resource (trusted PK/DDI formulas). This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like check_drug_interaction or search_formulary, making it easy for an agent to understand when to use this tool.

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 an 'Agent contract' for handling the output but does not give any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_formula_details or simulate_pk_interaction. It lacks explicit context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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