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 the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it states the file's own date columns carry authorisation dates, unlike EMA's Art 57 register, which tells the agent this signal is reliable where the EMA equivalent is not.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core result set before the parenthetical comparison. Tight overall; the EMA contrast is slightly editorial but earns its place by warning about a common cross-source confusion.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly. It stops short of describing return shape, but with no output schema that is a minor omission.

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 the 'since' parameter already documents the YYYY-MM-DD format and meaning. The description confirms the semantic basis of the filter (authorisation dates) but adds no syntax or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the 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?

Names a specific verb-and-resource outcome (products first authorised, or with a new dosage strength, in Switzerland since a date) and explicitly contrasts with EMA's Article 57 register. It clearly identifies this as a change-signal tool, though it does not distinguish itself from the swissmedic_search / swissmedic_product siblings that also operate on the same source.

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 phrase 'since a given date' and 'real change signal' imply the intended use case (change detection over a window) but never state when to use this versus swissmedic_search or swissmedic_product. No explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is provided, so usage is only implied.

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