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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by documenting the per-kind payload shape and, importantly, what is explicitly excluded, which prevents an agent from calling it hoping for stock or pricing data. It does not discuss error behaviour for an unknown kind/slug pair.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then the routing constraint, then scope. The four per-kind field lists are dense and partly overlap with the output schema, so a little is redundant, but nothing is filler and the ordering is deliberate.

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?

Two required params, an output schema for return values, and full annotation coverage — the description closes every remaining gap: which kinds exist, where slugs come from, what differs per kind, and what will never be returned.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum on `kind` already constrains values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds meaning by tying each `kind` value to a distinct returned field set, but the slug-origin detail largely repeats the schema's own description text. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb plus resource ('public facts on one ... page') and enumerates the exact entity types it accepts. It also names the sibling it is not (get_product), so an agent can route between them without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the `slug` value originates (find_clinics, find_pharmacies, find_strains, find_brands, search_findabis) and gives an explicit alternative for products: 'For a product, use get_product.' It also states the negative case — stock, per-pharmacy prices, staff and patient data are not returned.

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