Refunded drug price, co-payment and cheaper substitutes (Poland)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain behavior beyond that: the tool surfaces refund limits, per-tablet cheapest price, and free-of-charge status for seniors 65+, under-18s and pregnant women, which tells the agent what to expect semantically. It does not cover ambiguous queries, no-match behavior, or result shape, 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?

Two dense sentences front-load the return payload, followed by a compact query-format line. Nearly every clause carries information; only the long enumeration of free-of-charge groups could be tightened.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, plus it documents the key query parameter. It stops short of describing edge cases (ambiguity, no match, non-refunded medicines) that an agent would want for a 3-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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's generic 'Drug name / substance with optional strength and pack size, or EAN/GTIN' by giving concrete query forms ('Tulip 20 mg', 'atorwastatyna 20 mg', 'atorvastatinum', '30 szt', EAN/GTIN), which materially helps query construction. `max` and `indication` are not discussed, so it is not a full 5.

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 names a precise resource (Polish refund-list medicine pricing) and enumerates exactly what is returned: official pharmacy price, NFZ refund limit, refund level, patient co-payment, cheaper equivalents, and price per tablet. That scope cleanly separates it from the generic-sounding sibling drug_info without needing to name it.

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 by the Polish refund-list scope and the query-format guidance, but the description never states when to prefer this over drug_info or data_sources, nor any exclusion (e.g. non-refunded or foreign drugs). No explicit when/when-not routing is provided.

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