get_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention response format, error behavior, pagination, or the read-only nature of the operation. It only explains the domain concept of schedules, leaving behavioral transparency largely unaddressed.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening statement, a brief explanatory sentence, and a bulleted list of examples. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 relatively simple getter with an output schema available, this description provides adequate domain context (what schedules mean) and clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it lacks usage guidance and deeper behavioral details, preventing a perfect completeness score.

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 descriptions for all four parameters (lang, type, drug_code, active_only). The description does not elaborate on these parameters but adds useful context about schedule types, which helps interpret results. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Get drug schedule(s) for a drug product', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling getters by focusing on regulatory classification, and the examples (Prescription, OTC, Schedule G, etc.) further clarify the exact resource being retrieved.

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 when a drug product's regulatory schedule is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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