get-drugs-by-manufacturer

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 mentions the tool 'Get all drugs' but does not specify behavioral traits like whether it returns a list, pagination details, error handling, or performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation, leaving gaps in transparency for an agent to use it effectively.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds useful context in the second, with no wasted words. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and typical use cases, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's moderate complexity (a filtered list operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and usage context but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. This leaves the agent with gaps, especially since there's no output schema to clarify what the tool returns.

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 both parameters ('manufacturerName' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all drugs manufactured by a specific company'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get-drug-by-name' or 'get-drug-by-ndc' which focus on individual drug lookup rather than manufacturer-based filtering. It explicitly mentions the manufacturer scope, making the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 clear usage context by stating it's 'Useful for finding alternatives or checking manufacturer portfolios,' which implicitly guides when to use this tool (e.g., for manufacturer-related queries). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, such as preferring 'get-drug-by-name' for individual drug lookups, which prevents a score of 5.

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