goodrx_find_pharmacies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool finds pharmacies that 'accept GoodRx discount coupons,' which implies a read-only search operation, but doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of pharmacies with details). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose clearly but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. With no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, leaving gaps in completeness. It meets the baseline for a simple search tool but could be more informative.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (zip_code, pharmacy_name, radius_miles) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying location-based searching and GoodRx acceptance, which is already covered by the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find pharmacies near a location that accept GoodRx discount coupons.' It specifies the action (find), resource (pharmacies), and key constraint (accept GoodRx coupons). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'goodrx_compare_prices' or 'goodrx_search_drug', which might also involve pharmacy-related searches.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'goodrx_compare_prices' or 'goodrx_get_prices', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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