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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation 'Costs 1 credit', a useful behavioral detail not present in annotations. It also explains what the tool returns, giving extra transparency beyond the structured data.

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 concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. It includes the database name, search keys, return values, and cost in fewer than 30 words. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and six optional parameters, the description communicates the core purpose, searchable attributes, and key return content (UDI, descriptions, company info). It also notes the credit cost. It does not detail pagination or result caps, but schema descriptions already cover limit and offset, so completeness is adequate.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description mentions the main search fields (device ID, device name, company name, brand name) but does not add semantic detail beyond the schema, such as exact-match vs fuzzy-search behavior, which is already in the schema. It adds no new parameter insight.

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 tool searches the FDA's GUDID by device identifier, device name, company name, or brand name, and returns device details. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and names the resource (GUDID). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'fda_device_udi', but the description is unambiguous on its own.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when looking up medical device information via DI/barcode, device name, company, or brand name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the search dimensions make the intended use obvious. No misleading guidance is present.

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