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

The description goes beyond the basic readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the exact type of data returned (dosage strengths, titration schedules, forms, plan pricing, contraindications, side effects). It does not contradict annotations, and it adds useful context about the tool's output scope, though it does not cover potential rate limiting or other hidden behaviors (which are partially indicated by the client_ip parameter).

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 detailed and well-organized, starting with the core purpose and then listing contents in a structured way. While it is on the longer side, every sentence adds useful information, and it ends with a clear usage directive. It could be tightened slightly, but it earns a strong score.

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 a rich output schema (not shown but implied by has_output_schema=true), so the description does not need to explain return structure. The description covers all key aspects: what data is included, how to query, and the specific use case for plan durations and pricing. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by providing concrete example medication names and categories, and by indicating that 'medication' and 'category' are mutually alternative query modes, which goes beyond the schema's simple parameter descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific medication' and enumerates specific content (dosage strengths, titration schedules, forms, plan options, pricing, contraindications, side effects). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like medications_list and medications_pricing by explicitly mentioning lookups for 'exact plan durations and pricing' and supporting queries by name or category.

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: 'Use this to look up exact plan durations and pricing.' It also explains how to query (by medication name or category), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the 'when-not' aspect that would earn a 5.

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