get_therapeutic_class

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 adds helpful context about how classification is assigned (by main therapeutic use, using ATC). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or explain the potential for multiple classes beyond the '(es)' in the name. It also does not mention response formats or error conditions, though the output schema may cover some of this.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds valuable domain context without any unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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 simple lookup tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is sufficient. It provides the classification method (ATC) and the basis (main therapeutic use). The only minor gap is not explicitly noting the possibility of multiple therapeutic classes or how the lang/type parameters affect the response, but these are present 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 schema already fully documents all three parameters (drug_code, lang, type) with their types, enums, and defaults. The description does not add any additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool retrieves therapeutic class(es) for a drug product and specifies the ATC classification system. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_active_ingredients or get_dosage_form, which retrieve different attributes.

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 a clear context: use this tool when you need the therapeutic classification of a drug. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the specificity of 'therapeutic class' and the mention of ATC make the intended use clear. No exclusions are stated, but none are necessary for this simple retrieval tool.

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