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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires prepaid credit, does not require platform credentials, returns non-confidential official data, and includes LGPD compliance responsibilities. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the operational and legal context without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise, with three sentences that convey essential operational and legal details. It opens with the core purpose ('consulta em fonte oficial') and then provides payment and data-privacy context. There is slight redundancy (e.g., 'fontes e órgãos oficiais' and 'a mesma disponível ao cidadão' repeat the idea of official/public data), but overall it is well-organized and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 six parameters, zero required, and no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., medication leaflet details, warnings, dosage), nor does it describe how the parameters interact (e.g., whether all are optional, how date ranges work). While the description covers payment and data governance, it leaves the query semantics and result format completely unexplained. For a lookup tool with this many parameters, the description is incomplete.

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 for missing parameter documentation. However, the description does not mention the parameters at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory in Portuguese (e.g., nome_medicamento, data_inicial), but the description provides no additional details about required fields, formats, or relationships. This is a significant gap, as the agent has no guidance beyond the parameter names themselves.

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: it performs a consultation (consulta) in the ANVISA Bulário Eletrônico, an official Brazilian source. The verb 'consultar' and the resource 'Bulário Eletrônico' are explicit, and the description emphasizes it accesses the same data available to citizens. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (platform utilities like authenticate, marketplace) which have completely different functions.

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 implies usage for querying official Brazilian healthcare information, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the tool is hosted on the platform and requires prepaid credit, but does not discuss any other lookup tools or exclusions. The context of official data (not confidential, LGPD compliance) gives some guidance, but there is no direct comparison or when-not-to-use statement.

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