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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a single product can yield multiple records across strengths, and the export carries no indication text and no per-product URL. It stops short of describing pagination or response shape, so a 4 rather than 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?

Two front-loaded sentences with little waste: the first states the core behavior, the second explains why the authoritative source is returned. Efficient and well-ordered, though the second sentence is slightly defensive/long.

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 discloses what the record contains and what it deliberately lacks (indication text, per-product URLs), which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps: no mention of multi-match behavior or result size expectations for a one-name lookup.

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 100%, so the single 'name' parameter (exact or near-exact, as it appears in the export) is already fully documented. The description only restates 'by name' and adds no matching-format or ambiguity resolution detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: returns the full Swissmedic record(s) for one product by name, and enumerates contents (every authorised dosage strength, authorisation number, dates). It differentiates from a 'paraphrased indication', but does not name sibling tools like swissmedic_search to sharpen the boundary, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: retrieve the authoritative record for a named product rather than a paraphrase. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and the relevant siblings (swissmedic_search, swissmedic_dataset_info, swissmedic_recent_changes) are never named as alternatives, leaving routing to inference.

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