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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: results include the recall reason in Spanish when available, the federal data updates daily, and the coverage is limited to the US and Puerto Rico. It does not contradict 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?

Three short sentences, each adding a distinct piece of information: the core check, output language behavior, data freshness, and geographic scope. Nothing is redundant or filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description provides the essential operational context: what is checked, where it applies, and how current the data is. It does not spell out the exact return shape, but no output schema exists and 'verifica' implies a status check, while the Spanish-reason clause gives partial output semantics. A bit more detail on the result format would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter 'medicamento' with an example, so the 100% schema description coverage sets a baseline of 3. The description repeats 'medicamento o producto' but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verifica') and a clear resource ('si un medicamento o producto tiene un recall activo de la FDA'), which immediately sets it apart from siblings like buscar_medico or eventos_proximos. It also adds scope details (daily federal data, US/Puerto Rico coverage) that make the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool to check active FDA recalls for drugs/products. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling list is composed of unrelated domains, so the situations in which this tool applies are obvious from the purpose statement.

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