Return recent FDA enforcement/recall actions tied to a device/drug firm (openFDA). A manufacturer-risk layer for procurement and payor teams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| firm | Yes | Recalling firm / manufacturer name. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns 'recent' actions, but does not specify recency limits, output format, pagination, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a parenthetical—with no wasted words. Every part serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient information to understand its purpose and target audience. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.
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 sole parameter 'firm' is adequately described in the schema ('Recalling firm / manufacturer name.'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting a baseline score of 3.
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 verb 'Return', the resource 'FDA enforcement/recall actions', and the scope 'tied to a device/drug firm'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on FDA enforcement, while siblings like 'provider_lookup' and 'new_exclusions' suggest different domains.
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 mentions the tool's context for procurement and payor teams, implying when it might be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct function: FDA enforcements, new OIG exclusions, general provider lookup with exclusion flag, and detailed exclusion screening. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tools use snake_case and are descriptive, but patterns vary: fda_enforcement is a noun phrase, new_exclusions is adjective+noun, provider_lookup is noun+verb, screen_exclusion is verb+noun. This minor inconsistency slightly reduces clarity.
Four tools is appropriate for the healthcare provider risk domain, covering key areas without bloat. It's on the lower end but still sufficient for basic workflows.
Core functionality is covered (FDA recall alerts, new exclusions, provider lookup, exclusion screening). Missing a tool for detailed exclusion info or direct SAM.gov access, but the surface is reasonably complete for credentialing and procurement teams.