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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context of 'from the register' and the list types, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as failure modes, data source limitations, or whether results are cached. Given annotations cover the key safety aspects, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core question. It is concise with no filler, and the key information (substance, jurisdiction, list types) appears early. It could be improved with structured sections, but it is efficient for its length.

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 is present, so return values are defined externally. The description is adequate for a simple lookup tool with two string parameters. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., unknown substances, jurisdiction format) and does not explain the relationship to sibling tools. For the tool's complexity, it is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'substance' and 'jurisdiction' implicitly in the sentence, but provides no additional meaning such as accepted formats, examples, or required representations. The description adds no value beyond what the tool name and schema already convey, leaving the agent to infer parameter details from the schema alone.

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: to determine whether a substance may be lawfully compounded in a jurisdiction and which list/standard applies. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('compounding eligibility'), and the mention of specific standards (503A/503B, provincial, magistral, Specials) distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_availability or get_price.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions that would make it the right choice, nor does it reference any sibling tools or exclusions. The usage context is implied by the purpose, but there is no explicit 'use when...' or 'instead of...' guidance.

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