list_recent_actionsThe most recent published FDA warning letters, recalls, approvals, and 483 citations across all streams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | How many trailing days to include (default 7) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'most recent' and 'across all streams' but omits ordering, pagination, result limits, or return format. It does not indicate whether the tool is readonly or has side effects.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and scope.
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 simple input schema and no output schema, the description is adequate for purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., return structure, limit on results). The sibling list provides context, but the description could be more complete regarding result behavior.
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 covers 100% of the one parameter ('days') with a clear explanation. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond 'across all streams', which is already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specifies the tool lists recent FDA enforcement actions including warning letters, recalls, approvals, and 483 citations. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('recent FDA enforcement actions'), and the broad scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_warning_letter.
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 implies usage for getting a broad recent overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings (e.g., get_company_history for a specific company). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are generally distinct, but get_company_history and search_enforcement both return warning letters and recalls, which could cause confusion if an agent needs a single record type. However, the entry points (company slug vs. keyword search) reduce ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_company_history, list_recent_actions), using underscores and descriptive verbs like get, list, and search.
5 tools is well-scoped for a domain specializing in FDA enforcement data; each tool covers a clear use case without redundancy.
The set covers company history, recall by lot, warning letter lookup, recent list, and search, but lacks dedicated tools for direct recall by recall number or specific approval lookups, leaving minor gaps.