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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it performs no inference/aggregation, is limited to the available snapshot, and returns empty data array on no match. This goes beyond the annotations, justifying a 4.

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 a single paragraph with no filler, front-loading the primary purpose and then covering key behaviors. Every sentence adds value—purpose, behavior, coverage, and error handling—without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with four parameters, but the schema covers all parameter semantics. The description explains pagination and snapshot behavior, and the annotations cover safety. It lacks explicit details on return value structure, but output schema is absent, so the description does not need to over-explain returns. A 4 is appropriate for completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters in detail. The description reinforces the required nature of 'query' and notes the empty-array behavior on no match, which complements the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful context about the query behavior, moving it to 4.

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 states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'medical devices by product or trade-name text'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_udi_device (which likely fetches a single device) and search_udi_category (which searches by category), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context on how to use it (search by product/trade-name text, returns paginated records, requires query). It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when not to use it, but the sibling names (e.g., search_udi_category) imply alternatives exist, so a 4 is appropriate.

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