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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the data source is FDA's official list, it contains 1,500+ authorizations, it is tracked weekly by Atlas, and it is a joined queryable dataset rather than the raw openFDA feed.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The description front-loads the authoritative source and scope, lists concrete operations, and closes with the dataset's value proposition. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 read-only query tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the source, the update cadence, and all main query modes. The only minor omission is the shape of the returned records, but the absence of an output schema and the clear list-oriented purpose keep this gap small.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's mention of filtering by panel/year and checking a submission number mirrors the schema rather than adding new semantic detail, which lands at the baseline 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 states a specific verb/resource combo: list FDA AI-enabled medical device authorizations, with explicit operations like filtering by panel/year or checking a submission number. It also distinguishes itself from openFDA by noting this is the joined, queryable version.

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 tool's intended use cases are clearly enumerated: list recent authorizations, filter by panel or year, or check a submission number. It notes openFDA lacks an AI field, implying this tool is the right choice for AI-specific queries, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or exclusion conditions.

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