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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful traits: literal recorded-name matching rather than semantic English-to-Chinese mapping, the warning not to invent company identities, that records may be variants not distinct brands, and no safety/recall conclusions.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the use-before-web-search directive and scope first. Every sentence carries actionable content, though the single long final sentence packs several distinct constraints together.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description characterizes the returned records (models, manufacturers, registration numbers, UDI identifiers, variant ambiguity) and pagination via limit. It is close to complete, with only offset/snapshot semantics left unexplained.

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 only 25% across 4 parameters, so the description should compensate. It does clarify the limit (default 20, maximum 100), but says nothing about offset or the snapshot pagination parameter, leaving real gaps.

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 (search) and resource (China NMPA UDI device records) with the scope of matching (by product name or keyword). It explicitly distinguishes itself from general web search and from dedicated lookup siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to use it before general web search, and to prefer the dedicated lookup tool when an exact UDI, company, or registration number is given. Provides the when-to-use condition and names the alternative.

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