get_route_of_administration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that a product can have multiple routes, hinting at an array-like response. However, it does not mention the default language/format behavior, presence of active_only filtering, or any error/edge-case behavior. These are not disclosed beyond schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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: the first states the purpose directly, the second provides a concise definition with examples. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and immediately scannable.

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?

This is a low-complexity lookup tool with a full input schema and an output schema available. The description explains the domain, the multiplicity, and the resource, which is sufficient for an agent to select the tool. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. The only minor gap is lack of mention of the active_only option, but that is already in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds domain context (what a route is) and multiplicity, but it does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. No parameter is left unexplained by the schema, so the description neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource pair: "Get route(s) of administration for a drug product." It uses domain terminology and examples (oral, topical, etc.) to make the resource unmistakable, and the resource is unique among the sibling tools, so it is well-distinguished.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever route of administration information is needed for a drug product. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent would know it is the right tool for this resource. The sibling list confirms no overlap.

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