get_active_ingredients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains what active ingredients are and that it returns name, strength, and dosage information, which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior, response format details, or explicitly confirm read-only safety beyond the 'get' verb.

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 highly concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a brief definitional context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and read-only nature, the description is largely sufficient. The only gap is not addressing when to choose this over search_active_ingredients, which would help an agent navigate the sibling tools more effectively.

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 100%, with each parameter (drug_code, lang, type, ingredient_name) already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it only reinforces that the tool is for a drug product.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'active ingredient(s) for a drug product,' distinguishing it from search_active_ingredients. It also defines active ingredients and mentions return fields (name, strength, dosage), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage for a specific drug product via the required drug_code parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_active_ingredients or other siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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