search_enforcementFull-text search across all 1,000+ Argus HQ FDA enforcement pages (warning letters, recalls, approvals, 483 inspections) by keyword, product name, or company name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search text -- company name, product, or keyword |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only mentions search across 1,000+ pages but lacks disclosure on pagination, rate limits, result format, or limitations such as maximum results. Does not convey behavioral traits beyond core function.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with core action and resource, no redundant information. Highly concise.
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?
With only one parameter and no output schema, description is reasonable but missing details on result handling (e.g., pagination, count limits). Adequate but not fully complete for a search tool.
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 covers parameter 'query' with description. Description adds value by clarifying usage for 'keyword, product name, or company name', enriching the semantic understanding beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'FDA enforcement pages' with specific categories (warning letters, recalls, approvals, 483 inspections). Distinguishes from sibling tools which target specific record types (e.g., get_warning_letter) by offering general full-text search.
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?
Implies usage for broad keyword search but does not explicitly state when to use versus dedicated siblings. No guidance on scenarios where specific tools like get_recall_by_lot are preferable.
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.