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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 7-day freshness window for medicine reports, the prescription indicator, an explicit non-medical-advice disclaimer, and an emergency fallback (907).

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 purpose and mostly dense, but the parenthetical source URL and pharmacy-count trivia add minor noise that doesn't help an agent call the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting is not required, and the description covers the medicine-availability behavior plus a safety disclaimer. Coverage is solid; the only gap is the absence of sibling routing guidance.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining what the medicine parameter actually does - returning whether a pharmacy reported stocking it in the last 7 days and whether a prescription is required - which is meaning the schema field alone does not convey.

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 (search) and resource (pharmacies) scoped to Addis Ababa, and names the data source and size (BinaSmart Health, ~1,700 from the MoH registry). This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like search_health and search_places.

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?

'Search by name or area' plus the medicine branch gives implied usage for the two modes, and the prescription/disclaimer lines sketch the context. But it never names alternatives (e.g. search_health) or states when to prefer this tool, so routing is left to inference.

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