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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns availability status and reason if unavailable, and explains the licensing-based state restrictions. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying the output shape and domain logic without contradicting the read-only nature.

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 three sentences with no redundant content. The first sentence states the primary action, the second provides necessary background on why restrictions exist, and the third outlines the return behavior. Every sentence earns its place, 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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations, and the description adds the necessary context: purpose, return value (status and reason), and the state-specific shipping nuance. Given the simplicity of the operation and the structured schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by linking medication and state to the shipping availability check, but it doesn't elaborate on client_ip or parameter syntax 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check if a specific medication is available for shipping to the patient's state.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource (medication availability for shipping), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like medications_list or medications_details by focusing on state-specific restrictions.

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 context on when to use the tool: when needing to verify whether a medication can be shipped to a patient's state, especially for compounded medications with state-specific restrictions. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the purpose is evident from the phrasing 'to the patient's state' and the mention of shipping restrictions.

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