Medicine registration data (Poland)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only a list of returned fields and omits behavioral facts an agent would want: the hard cap of 15 results (max=15), matching/ranking behavior, and whether the query is exact or partial. It adds little beyond what the structured fields give.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no wasted clauses, which is good, but it is a noun-phrase fragment that front-loads data fields instead of the action, making it less immediately actionable than a verb-led opening would be.

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's enumeration of returned fields (ATC, prescription status codes, EAN packs, leaflet/SmPC links) is genuinely useful return-value context. However, it leaves out the 15-result cap, query matching semantics, and any routing guidance, so it is only minimally complete for a 2-parameter lookup tool.

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 50%: `query` is documented in the schema as 'Drug name, substance or EAN/GTIN', and the description reinforces this by naming substance/EAN-like content. The `max` parameter, by contrast, is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

The description states what data comes back (substance, strength, form, ATC, MAH, prescription status, packs, leaflet/SmPC links) but never states an action verb such as 'look up' or 'search'. An agent can infer a register lookup from the name and the required `query` param, but the purpose is framed as a data-content list rather than a task, and no sibling (drug_price, data_sources) is distinguished.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the siblings drug_price or data_sources, even though a price lookup is the obvious adjacent tool an agent must choose between. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right call versus pricing or source metadata.

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