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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly a safe, read-only search. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations by warning that results do not imply current sales, clearance, or safety.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose and adding a crucial disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the search intent and important disclaimers. It could mention that all parameters are optional, but given the presence of the schema and annotations, the description is reasonably complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 20% (only 'query' has a description), the description should compensate. It mentions searchable fields ('brand, company, device identifier, or product code'), which aligns with the parameters 'query', 'company', 'primary_di', and 'product_code', but provides no details on the 'limit' parameter or input format. This adds moderate 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 'Search FDA GUDID/UDI records by brand, company, device identifier, or product code,' specifying the verb 'search' and the resource 'FDA GUDID/UDI records.' It also distinguishes the tool from sibling FDA tools (e.g., 510k, adverse events) by clarifying that the returned UDI records do not establish sales, clearance, or safety.

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 context by stating what a UDI record represents and what it does not establish, helping agents avoid misinterpretation. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like fda_device_510k_search or give direct when-not instructions.

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