availability

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it names the three distinct Infarmed datasets queried, states that latest versions are found automatically, enumerates the possible status values, and warns that a negative result is not proof of availability. It omits operational traits such as authentication, rate limits, or latency, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with a one-line statement of what it answers, followed by usage triggers, then the enumerated data sources. The trailing Args block largely restates the schema, and the three-bullet source list is dense, but each element carries genuine information for the caller.

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?

For a two-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description supplies everything needed: data provenance, the meaning of every possible status value, the caveat about false negatives, and input formatting guidance. No behavioural or interpretive gap remains for an agent deciding whether to trust a negative result.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates: 'medicine' is explained as brand or active substance with optional strength/form, with concrete Portuguese examples ("quetiapina", "Ozempic", "ácido acetilsalicílico") and a narrowing example. 'limit' is clarified as max rows per list with its default, which is more precise than the bare integer schema.

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 and resource: answers whether a medicine is in shortage in Portugal, sourced from Infarmed. The opening question form plus the explicit source make it immediately distinguishable from siblings like find_medicine_near and pharmacies, which address where to obtain a medicine rather than whether it is in shortage.

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 concrete trigger conditions ("Use when someone can't find a medicine, or asks whether X is in shortage") including the Portuguese keywords users actually type. It also sets expectations about coverage ("No issue" does not prove availability; the full shortage search is not queried). It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative when this tool is the wrong choice, so it stops short of a 5.

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