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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds pagination behavior ('real offset+limit pagination with a total match count'), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't state rate limits, result ordering, or match semantics (substring vs exact) beyond what's in the schema.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the resource and scope, then lists the returned data, then example questions, then pagination. It is well-structured but slightly long; every clause carries content, so it earns most of its length.

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?

Given 6 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, example queries, and pagination semantics. It lacks explicit sibling routing (which other Swissmedic tool to choose when) and match-mode details, but is otherwise complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the pagination mechanism, which is a minor amplification. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Swissmedic's authorised human medicines register), and the description enumerates the returned data fields (authorised dosage strengths, MAH, category, dispensing tier, authorisation dates). It also names example question patterns, making the tool's scope unmistakable relative to siblings like swissmedic_product and swissmedic_dataset_info.

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 example questions ('is <product> authorised in Switzerland', 'who holds the Swiss authorisation') imply when to use this search tool versus the sibling swissmedic_product (product detail lookup). But there is no explicit statment of when to use this vs. swissmedic_product or swissmedic_recent_changes, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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