Health magazine articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that: corpus size, what each hit contains (summary, author as nutrition/health specialist, date), and a scope caveat that articles are general education rather than medical advice. It says nothing about pagination limits or empty-result behavior, which the schema partially covers instead.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage example, then return shape, then next-step routing and disclaimer. No sentence is padding, though the article-count parenthetical and the disclaimer could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a five-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the otherwise-missing return shape (summary, author, date) and the natural follow-up call. Pagination and sort semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage, but a note on total pages or result caps would close the last gap.

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 100% and every parameter already carries a description, including the full category mapping and Persian query examples. The description's mention of category 14 and the Persian example queries largely restates the schema rather than adding new semantics such as multi-term behavior or query-matching rules. 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search the Darukade health magazine') plus concrete scope ('about 2,900 articles on illnesses, supplements, skin, drugs'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling dr_article, which is named as the follow-up for reading full text, so an agent can separate searching from reading without inspecting either schema.

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 explicit when-to-use framing ('background on a condition, an ingredient or a drug') with a worked example query and points to category 14 for drug-information articles. It also routes post-search behavior to dr_article with the id or url. It does not contrast itself with dr_search or dr_categories, so the alternative-selection guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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