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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds clear behavioral detail: it says the tool reports whether the claim matches a stored value, appears only in the verbatim FDA quote, or differs, and if it differs, what the FDA page says instead. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a precise expectation of the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The opening question immediately orients the agent, the resource and scope are stated, and the outcome is explained. Every phrase earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it checks, and what it returns. It does not need to repeat return types since the output schema exists, and the sibling tools are clearly different. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocations.

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% and each parameter (field, record_id, claimed_value) already has descriptions. The description adds a list of example fields (alert number, country, date, reason) that map to the 'field' parameter, which is mildly helpful but not essential. Since the schema carries the burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('check'), resource ('a red-list entry' or 'the register'), and lists the fields it covers (alert number, country, date, reason). It also explains the distinct outcome (matches, verbatim-only, or differs with FDA's stated value), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or resolve firms.

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 usage: check a claim against the register 'instead of trusting it.' It gives a clear context for when to call it (verifying a fact) but does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions. It does not specify when not to use it, though the context is unambiguous given the sibling set.

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