get-drug-safety-info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool 'gets' information (implying read-only), it doesn't explicitly state whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what format the information returns in, or potential limitations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key usage requirement. The first sentence clearly states what the tool does, and the second provides necessary input guidance. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single parameter, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and input format. However, for a tool that returns 'comprehensive safety information', the description should ideally mention what format the information comes in (structured data, text summary, etc.) or any limitations, making it minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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%, with the single parameter 'drugName' clearly documented in the schema as 'Drug brand name'. The description adds minimal value beyond this by repeating 'Use brand name', which essentially restates what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get comprehensive safety information for a drug' with specific details about what information is included (warnings, contraindications, drug interactions, precautions). It distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on safety information rather than general drug lookup or adverse events, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'get-drug-by-generic-name'.

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 some usage guidance: 'Use brand name' specifies the required input format. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-drug-adverse-events' (which might focus on different safety aspects) or other drug lookup tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit about tool selection.

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