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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that results are official FDA document-index metadata with direct links to posted records, and that extracted document text is included incrementally when available. It does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and filters, followed by a concise statement about the content and use case. Every sentence earns its place with no wordiness or repetition of schema details.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description communicates the essential purpose, filterable attributes, and the value proposition (links + extracted text). It could be more explicit about ordering (e.g., 'recent' implies date ordering) or default behavior, but the description is sufficiently complete for a typical search tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description briefly lists some filter fields (company, FEI, record type, country, establishment type, publish date) but does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. It does not compensate with extra detail, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource ('FDA Office of Inspections and Investigations reading-room records'), listing several searchable fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming OII reading-room records and noting the 483-style inspection evidence focus, which sets it apart from general inspection or warning letter searches.

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 for use ('useful for finding recent 483-style inspection evidence by account') and implies a search/filter role. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling FDA tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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