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 safety profile is covered. The description adds content context (CFR reference and investigator notes) and the data source (FDA Data Dashboard OII), but doesn't disclose behavioral quirks like rate limits, pagination, or response format. Since annotations carry the main safety burden, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and source attribution. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and search capabilities. The schema examples provide usage patterns, and annotations handle safety. It doesn't explain filter combination logic (e.g., AND vs OR) or default behavior when no filters are given, but these are minor given the overall context. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the 9 parameters is individually documented. The description reinforces the search filters (firm, country, state, date range) but doesn't add new semantic detail beyond the schema. The _apiKey parameter is not mentioned in the description, but its schema entry explains the format. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Individual Form 483 observations cited during FDA inspections — the specific CFR reference and what the investigator actually wrote.' It uses a specific verb-resource combination and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'WHY a site was cited, not just that it was.' This makes it easy for an agent to understand what it does and how it differs from other FDA tools.

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 usage context: 'Use this to see WHY a site was cited, not just that it was.' It implies that other tools (e.g., fda_inspections) may only show citations, while this one gives the reasoning. It also lists searchable dimensions (firm, country, state, date range). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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