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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses useful behavior: results are ordered newest first, can be filtered by country, and each entry includes the FDA page and a verbatim quote. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The opening question front-loads the purpose, and the second sentence packs ordering, filtering, and output content into a compact, readable form.

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?

With an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: data source, ordering, filtering, and result contents. It could explicitly name sibling alternatives, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters. The description adds value with concrete examples of import_alert_number formats and clarifies that country is an optional narrowing filter on top of an alert number.

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 operation: returns firms red-listed on one import alert number. It identifies the resource precisely, ties the input to list_import_alerts, and gives concrete examples that distinguish it from alert-level and firm-resolution 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?

The description implies the intended workflow by pointing to list_import_alerts as the source of alert numbers and shows how to narrow by country. It does not explicitly contrast with get_listing or resolve_firm, but the usage context is clear enough.

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