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 known. The description adds valuable context about what the tool captures (standing alert status and specific firms currently listed), which deepens the agent's understanding beyond the 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, each earning its place: the first lists search capabilities, the second provides strategic context. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description gives an overview of the tool's purpose and hints at the returned entities ('specific firms currently listed under each alert'). Combined with the rich parameter descriptions, this is sufficient for a read-only search tool, though it doesn't describe pagination or result structure.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, providing 100% coverage. The description's list of search fields doesn't add detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies here.

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 ('Search') and resource ('FDA Import Alerts') and enumerates the search dimensions (firm, alert number, red-list vs green-list status, country, keyword, date). It also contrasts this with one-off import refusals, effectively differentiating it from the sibling tool fda_import_refusals.

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 second sentence explicitly positions this tool as a stronger manufacturing/supplier-risk signal than one-off import refusals, implying when to prefer it. While it doesn't name fda_import_refusals explicitly, the reference is clear enough, though it could go further by stating when to use the alternative.

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