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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds critical behavioral context: MAUDE reports are unverified and cannot establish causation, incidence, prevalence, or comparative safety. This goes beyond annotations to set expectations about data reliability.

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: the first states the purpose and search criteria, the second adds a critical caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 7 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the search space and data limitations. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or empty result behavior, but these are less critical with the output schema present. The caution about data quality adds completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with individual parameter descriptions. The description lists the same parameter categories (manufacturer, brand/device, product code, event type, PMA/510(k) number) but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool searches FDA MAUDE medical-device reports and lists specific search criteria (manufacturer, brand/device, product code, event type, PMA/510(k) number). It distinguishes from sibling FDA tools like fda_device_510k_search and fda_device_recalls by targeting adverse event reports.

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 a caution that MAUDE reports are unverified signals and cannot establish causation, which guides appropriate use. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., fda_device_event_counts) or conditions for use beyond the data quality warning.

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