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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld. The description adds the returned fields and that the end date may be open-ended, plus that AEMPS observation often names an alternative. It does not cover pagination behavior or rate limits, and with annotations already carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and data source, then body refers to returned fields and examples. Slightly dense but every sentence earns its place; the only minor issue is the parenthetical Spanish translation adds length without much functional value.

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?

For a read-only list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers source, scope, return fields, and filtering behavior. Missing details are minor: pagination/defaults are left to the schema, and there is no explicit guidance on sibling tool selection.

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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the constraint that only name filters upstream (not lab), which is useful semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource: medicine-supply shortages in Spain from AEMPS. It names the data source, explains the AEMPS/FDA/EMA equivalence, and enumerates the returned fields. Distinguishes from sibling CIMA tools like cima_search_medicines and cima_changes_since.

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?

Provides example questions it answers and two invocations (empty vs. name filter). Notes that only product name filters upstream, not the lab, which is a usage-relevant constraint. No explicit when-not-to-use versus cima_medicine_detail or cima_search_medicines, so not a 5.

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