consultar_status_medicamento

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: when the local base is not synchronized, it returns mock data with fonte='mock' and warns not to treat it as regulatory information. This is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only query tool, the mock-data disclosure is the most important behavior to surface.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second details the search behavior and output fields, and the third warns about mock data. Every sentence earns its place, and the parameter explanation is integrated naturally.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already structured. The description covers the key context: what it searches, what it returns, and the mock-data caveat. It could mention pagination or result limits, but for a single-parameter query tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the parameter 'nome_ou_principio_ativo' with an example ('dipirona') and clarifies that it accepts either a commercial name or active ingredient. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 states a specific verb ('consulta'), a specific resource ('status do registro de um medicamento na Anvisa'), and the exact search dimensions (nome comercial ou princípio ativo). It clearly distinguishes the tool's function from the sibling 'buscar_samd_recentes', which is about recent SAMD records, not medication registration status.

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 explains what the tool does and what it returns, and it implicitly differentiates from the sibling by focusing on medication registration status. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name the sibling as an alternative, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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