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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: no inference or aggregation, snapshot-limited coverage, paginated structured records, empty array on no match, and argument error on invalid input. This is exactly the context annotations do not convey.

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?

Four sentences with the purpose and return shape front-loaded, followed by edge cases and requirements. Minor redundancy ('Inputs: category' vs 'Required: category') but no wasted sentences.

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 paginated search tool with rich schema and annotations, the description covers return structure, pagination fields, no-match behavior, snapshot limitation, and errors on missing/invalid input. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters at 100%, so the description only needs to add marginal semantics. It reiterates that category is required and notes validation error behavior, but does not add details beyond the 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('medical devices by a recorded category name or classification code'). Clear and distinct from sibling tools by naming the category-based scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with search_udi_products.

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?

Implied usage is when searching devices by recorded category or code, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. No exclusions or conditions compared to sibling tools are provided.

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