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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behaviorais. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it returns a 'try another name' message on no match, resolves only to canonical drug data, and clarifies it is cost/availability lookup only. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action and output are in the first sentence, followed by exclusions and the alternative tool, then the failure-mode message. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns: canonical drug data including dosage forms, strengths, and fill quantity, plus a fallback 'try another name' message. It also covers the key limitation (no pricing) and routes to get_prices, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly without missing critical behavior.

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 query and language parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add much parameter-specific detail beyond stating the tool handles brands/generics and English/Spanish, which the schema also covers. This meets the baseline for fully documented schema 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 names a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('free-text drug wording' to 'canonical LowerScript/RxSense drug'), and enumerates what the resolution yields: dosage forms, strengths, and typical fill quantity. It also explicitly differentiates itself from get_prices by stating it is 'never priced' and directs the agent there for pricing.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: resolving brand/generic drug wording in English or Spanish. It also provides explicit exclusions — 'never a substitute drug, never a dose recommendation' — and names the alternative tool get_prices for price lookups, making the routing decision unambiguous.

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