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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description builds on that by adding behavioral context: it explains the reason for state-specific restrictions (pharmacy licensing) and discloses the return content (availability status and reason if unavailable). This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only relevant context. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the verb and resource, the second explains the restriction and return format. No wasted words.

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?

Given the relatively simple tool with an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, restriction context, and return content. It does not mention client_ip's rate-limiting role, but that is in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat it.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining why 'state' matters (state-specific licensing restrictions for compounded medications), which is not present in the schema. This clarifies the significance of the parameters beyond their raw definitions.

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 states a specific action ('Check if a specific medication is available for shipping') with a clear resource (medication) and scope (patient's state). It distinguishes from sibling tools like medications_list or medications_pricing by focusing on availability and shipping 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 for when to use the tool: to verify shipping availability of a medication for a specific state, especially given compounded medication licensing restrictions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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