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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds useful regulatory and filtering context, but it does not disclose query match semantics, pagination behavior, or response shape beyond what the schema implies.

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 first identifies the resource, the second gives regulatory context, and the third lists filters and use cases. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 lookup with five optional, fully described parameters, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The lack of an output schema means return fields are only implied by 'clearances,' but this is adequate for a straightforward list-style 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds value by mapping query to manufacturer/device name and dates to decision date range, but it mostly restates what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource (FDA 510(k) clearances), explains the regulatory pathway, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like fda_device_recalls by focusing on clearances rather than recalls. The filter dimensions are also named, making the tool's scope immediately understandable.

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 provides concrete use cases (competitive intel, device R&D scouting, M&A research) and lists the available filter axes. It does not explicitly call out when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the distinction from recall/drug/food tools is strongly implied by the 510(k) clearance topic.

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