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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral details: returns up to 100 results, descending order by update date. This complements the annotations and provides concrete expectations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence provides the core behavior and constraints, the second adds usage guidance. Every word is necessary; no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, with output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, ordering, and use case. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameter details. No gaps.

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% for the single parameter 'limit' with a clear description ('1-100 (default 25)'). The description merely restates 'up to 100 results' without adding new meaning or default value. Therefore, no extra value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Return'), the specific resource ('most recently updated FDA Structured Product Labels from DailyMed'), and constraints ('up to 100 results, ordered by update date descending'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recent_alerts' and 'recent_changes' by focusing on drug labeling updates.

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 explicitly notes the tool is 'Useful for tracking newly revised drug labeling,' which provides clear usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or compare directly with sibling tools that might overlap, such as 'recent_alerts' or 'recent_changes.'

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