turkey_on_duty_pharmacies_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are daily emergency on-duty pharmacies and include addresses, phone numbers, and coordinates, but it does not explain data source, refresh timing, coverage completeness, or error behavior for invalid city/district values.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous wording. Every element—resource, return fields, and geographic scope—earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is largely complete because it names the key returned fields and clarifies the resource. It stops short of describing data freshness, source, or default city behavior, which would make it fully self-contained.

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 input schema already documents the city and district parameters. The description's phrase 'across provinces and districts' mirrors the schema without adding syntax, default behavior, or matching rules beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find daily emergency on-duty pharmacies.' It also states the returned data types (addresses, phone numbers, map coordinates) and geographic scope, making the tool clearly distinct from the unrelated Turkey-focused siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name: an agent would use this to locate on-duty pharmacies. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives or limitations such as only current-day results.

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