find_us_equivalent

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes beyond by detailing the output structure (usClass meanings, found flag, guidance being 'ONE vetted sentence' to quote verbatim) and explicit behavioral rules (do not translate/reword guidance, do not call the US drug the same product). This discloses important response-format expectations that annotations do not cover, with no contradictions.

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?

The description is detailed but highly structured. It opens with the purpose, then usage, output fields, next steps, and finally safety warnings. Every sentence carries information that an agent needs; there is no fluff. The length matches the complexity of the tool, and it is front-loaded with the most critical usage context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers everything necessary: when to use, what parameters mean, what the response contains, how to chain subsequent tool calls (compare_prices, get_drug), and how to present results to the user. The existence of an output schema further reduces the burden on the description for return types. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 must compensate. It explains brand indirectly via examples, and explicitly defines country ('picks between brands of the same name sold in different places') and locale ('a language code... host's own locale'). However, the `channel` parameter is not mentioned at all, and its purpose is left to the schema's default. Despite this minor gap, the description adds significant semantic value for the three primary parameters, so a 4 is warranted.

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 explicitly states the core function: 'Find out what a medicine from another country is in the US, and what it costs.' It provides concrete examples of inputs (No-Spa, paracetamol) and differentiates from sibling tools like search_drugs and get_drug by focusing on the US-equivalent lookup. It is clear, specific, and instantly distinguishable.

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 gives precise trigger conditions: 'Use when the person names a medicine that is not a US product...' and also covers the question phrasing ('what is this called in the US?'). It explains optional parameter usage (country, locale) and provides explicit next steps: quote guidance, call compare_prices or get_drug, offer the card. It also states what not to do (e.g., don't suggest substitutions). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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