drug_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the title, such as pagination behavior, result format, or that it queries multiple sources.

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 concise sentence (8 words) that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded and minimal, but could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., mentioning filters).

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 tool has 5 parameters (including filters) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not summarize the filter capabilities (drug_type, source) or pagination, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone. For a search tool with complex filtering, more context would be helpful.

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 description mentions 'name, mechanism, or keyword' which aligns with the query parameter, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the other parameters.

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 'Search for drugs by name, mechanism, or keyword', which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like drug_get (which likely retrieves a specific drug) and other search tools (article_search, trial_search) by focusing on drugs.

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 like drug_get, drug_trials, or other search tools. It lacks context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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