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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing that registration/listing does not imply FDA approval, which is critical for interpreting results. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it omits details like pagination or result limit behavior.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the action and parameters, the second provides a crucial disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?

Given the 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details like pagination, parameter interaction, or response structure (though output schema exists). The approval disclaimer is valuable, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explicitly lists 4 of 5 parameters (firm, registration_number, product_code, listing_number), which is helpful, but omits 'limit'. No details are provided on how parameters interact (e.g., combinability, partial matching), leaving gaps.

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 verb 'Search' and specifies the resource 'FDA device registration/listing data', listing specific search parameters (firm, registration number, product code, listing number). This differentiates it from sibling tools that search other FDA data (e.g., 510k, adverse events). The disclaimer adds context without obscuring purpose.

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 implies usage when searching by the listed parameters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like fda_device_510k_search or fda_device_classification. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the resource name alone.

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