pharmacies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the returned fields, the sort order (on-duty, then open-now, then distance), the duty-day boundary definition (09:00–09:00), that on_duty comes from an official roster, and the lat/lon-without-city fallback behavior. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 purpose, then uses cases, then return shape and caveat, then args — a sensible order with no filler. The Args block is long but justified at 0% schema coverage; minor duplication with the earlier field list is the only waste.

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?

An optional-everything seven-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions still leaves no ambiguity: all params, their interactions, the sort order, and the correctness caveat about stock are covered. The output schema means the return-value enumeration is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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%, so the description is the sole documentation and it fully compensates: every one of the seven parameters is explained, city includes disambiguation examples, radius_km is tied to lat/lon availability, and limit states the default 20 / max 100. The dependency rules (radius requires position) are stated explicitly.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: pharmacies within a Portuguese municipality, with duty status and open-now status. It is clearly distinguishable from stock-oriented siblings (medicine_availability, find_medicine_near) because it explicitly states stock is not public.

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 phrases ("farmácia de serviço em X", "pharmacy open now near me", "list pharmacies to call") and an explicit when-not: never claim a pharmacy stocks a medicine. That exclusion routes the agent away from the wrong use without needing the sibling list.

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