get_remedy_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the annotation bar is lowered but the description still carries the disclosure burden. The description is a read operation ('Retrieve... learn') which is implied but not explicitly declared as read-only. It doesn't mention error behavior for unknown remedies, normalization of abbreviations, or response structure. The description adds the 'full name, abbreviations, and alternative names' scope, which is useful but modest.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose immediately. No wasted words or redundancy. The final sentence is a mild filler ('Useful for learning about individual remedies') but not egregious. Appropriately compact for what it conveys.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (1 parameter, clear schema, output schema present). The description covers the purpose and the scope of returned info (name, abbreviations, alternative names). However, it doesn't note behavior for invalid/unknown remedy names, which would be helpful given lookups commonly encounter typos. Output schema exists so return-value documentation isn't required. Adequate but not rich.

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 blueprint for the remedy parameter is well documented with examples (Aconite, Acon., Aconitum napellus) and case-insensitivity. The description adds that it covers 'full name, abbreviations, and alternative names' which maps to the remedy parameter meaning, but the schema already provides the format and examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb+resource: "Retrieve comprehensive information about a specific homeopathic remedy" including its full name, abbreviations, and alternative names. It distinguishes from siblings (search_repertory, search_materia_medica) since it's about remedy identity data rather than searching content, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 description implies usage ('Useful for learning about individual remedies') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs search_materia_medica or search_repertory. The distinction is inferable—this retrieves remedy identity/name info, while siblings search remedy content—but no clear 'use this when' or 'use that instead' guidance is given.

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