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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: the data source (Compliance Dashboard) and that these are the most serious regulatory outcomes typically following OAI inspections. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it doesn't cover details like response format or pagination.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the main purpose. It packs relevant context (data source, action types, filters, related tools) into a compact structure. The parentheticals make it slightly dense but every sentence 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 search tool with 6 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers data source, filter options, example action types, and related tools. It lacks explicit mention of return structure (list of actions) but this is largely implied by the 'Search' verb and the tool's name, so it is reasonably complete.

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%, with every parameter described (limit, date range, fei_number, action_type, company_name). The description merely restates the filter options (company name, FEI number, action type, date range) without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Thus baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Search FDA compliance enforcement actions') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it covers Compliance Dashboard data (not in openFDA API) and specifying exact action types (Warning Letters, Seizures, Injunctions). This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context: data source (Compliance Dashboard, not openFDA), filtering capabilities, and related tools (fda_inspections, fda_citations) for underlying data. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when not to use this tool versus other enforcement-related siblings like fda_search_enforcement or fda_ires_enforcement, so it's not a full 5.

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