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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that a firm may appear multiple times with one record per alert, and that results include the FDA page and verbatim quote. These are meaningful behavioral traits not captured in the structured metadata and help set expectations for output shape and interpretation.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover search behavior, return contents, and the duplicate-record edge case. No wasted words; the question opener immediately conveys intent and each subsequent sentence contributes new information.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the search mechanics, optional filtering, return fields, and an important edge case. It does not address error handling or authentication, but these are unlikely to be required at this level and the existing content is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100% and both parameters are already described precisely. The description adds value with concrete examples ('Tonga Tiur', 'Qingdao', 'pharmacy') and clarifies that country filtering is optional, helping agents construct realistic queries beyond the schema's formal wording.

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 operation: searching FDA import alert red lists by firm name or part of one, optionally narrowed by country. It clearly identifies the resource and the action, and the duplicate-record note helps distinguish it from simpler lookup tools, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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 opening question ('Is this supplier red-listed by FDA?') implies when to use the tool, and the optional country filter indicates a common usage variation. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_alert_firms or verify_quote, nor any exclusions.

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