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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so credit goes to what the description adds: the exact-match lookup semantics, authoritative source, and a detailed enumeration of returned fields (status, MA, CIP13 packs, prices, SMR/ASMR, generic group, usage-professionnel flags). It does not mention rate limits or failure behavior for a non-matching exact name, keeping it short of a 5.

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 lookup semantics before the long field inventory, and every sentence carries information. The enumeration of return fields is dense but justified given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents what comes back, and it routes fuzzy lookups correctly. The only gap is that it never states that at least one of cis/name must be supplied, despite both being optional in the schema.

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% and both parameters are fully described there, so the baseline is 3. The description restates 'CIS code or exact official name' and adds no new syntax, format, or precedence rule beyond the schema (nor which to prefer when both are supplied).

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?

States a precise verb+resource (retrieve one French medicine) scoped by two exact identifiers, and names the data source (BDPM, ANSM/CNAM). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings fr_medicine_search and fr_generic_group.

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?

Gives concrete trigger queries (reimbursement rate for Doliprane 1000mg, contents of CIS 60234100) and an explicit boundary: "For partial or fuzzy name matches use fr_medicine_search first." Both when-to-use and which-alternative are spelled out.

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