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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add behavioral color. It does: matching is literal text, the agent must not invent a classification from a medical condition, and the tool declines treatment/safety/recall questions.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the use case, then the routing alternative, then the matching caveat, then the capability boundary. No sentence is filler.

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, so the description must convey enough to call correctly; it covers intent, routing, literal-match semantics, and scope exclusions. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination behavior, though the snapshot parameter hints at it.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does for 'category' by giving a concrete code example (16-06-01) and noting literal matching. It says nothing about limit, offset, or the snapshot consistency parameter, leaving those to the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb (search) and resource (NMPA UDI device categories), and distinguishes itself from the sibling search_china_medical_device by input type (category/class code vs. product-name phrase). An agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 explicitly states when to use it (user asks for NMPA UDI products in a recorded device category, class or classification code, e.g. 16-06-01), names the alternative tool and the condition selecting it (product-name phrases go to search_china_medical_device), and states what it does not do (treatment, safety, recall questions).

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