get_packaging

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') and does not describe auth requirements, potential errors, pagination, or any constraints. Although 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond that.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and free of fluff. It earns its place by stating exactly what the tool does, without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, output schema present, no nested objects), the description is adequate for basic usage. However, it misses an opportunity to differentiate among the many siblings by noting e.g., that it returns all packaging levels or that it can be used after getting a drug code.

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 100%, with both parameters (drug_code and type) having descriptive text. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'packaging information' for a 'drug product', making it unambiguous what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting a distinct resource (packaging) rather than active ingredients, companies, or dosage forms.

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. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools for related queries (e.g., get_drug_product, get_all_drug_info), leaving agents to infer usage from the name alone.

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