medicine_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden: it discloses that the content is verified reference data, that each record contains number, purpose, hours 'where published', and the source page it was checked on. That provenance and the hours-availability caveat are genuinely useful behavioral context for a read-only lookup; it stops short of stating outright that it performs no writes or that data is static.

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?

Front-loads the resource and its contents in one sentence, then immediately gives the usage triggers. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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?

A zero-parameter reference lookup with an output schema, so the description only needs to convey scope and content shape — both are covered, including the caveat that hours are only published for some lines.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; nothing about the call can be mis-specified. The description adds no parameter detail because none is needed.

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 resource (verified Portuguese help lines for medicine problems) and enumerates the actual entries returned: 112, SNS 24, Linha 1400, Infarmed. This clearly separates it from siblings like medicine_availability, find_medicine_near and pharmacies, which are about medicines/stock rather than who to call.

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?

Gives three concrete activation triggers: can't find a medicine, needs urgent advice, or asks who to call. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative (e.g., 'use medicine_availability to check stock instead'), so it stops short of full routing guidance but the context is clear.

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