search_active_ingredients

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only states the basic search operation. It fails to disclose whether matching is partial or exact, case sensitivity, pagination, rate limits, or what data is returned for each match. This is a notable transparency gap for a read/search tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and scope. It contains no redundant or extraneous wording.

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 search tool with full parameter coverage, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. It would benefit from noting behavior like partial matching or result limits, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema fully documents all three parameters with descriptions, defaults, and enum values, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The phrase 'by name' aligns with the ingredient_name parameter but does not introduce new semantic information.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('active ingredients by name across all drug products'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_drug_by_brand_name or get_active_ingredients. The scope 'across all drug products' adds useful precision.

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 the tool is for searching active ingredient names across all products, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, such as search_drug_by_brand_name or search_drug_by_din. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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