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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds valuable context by specifying the exact data fields (indications, dosage, warnings, interactions, contraindications) and the OpenFDA source, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every element (verb, resource, fields, source) earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple search tool with a small number of parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It states the data source (OpenFDA) and key searchable fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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% description coverage for all 3 parameters. Description does not add significant new meaning; it merely restates the search concept. Baseline score of 3 applies as schema already provides sufficient detail.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Search' with resource 'drug labeling data' and lists explicit fields (indications, dosage, warnings, interactions, contraindications). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like health.safety.drug_events and health.safety.food_recalls.

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?

Description mentions OpenFDA source but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor exclusions. Usage context is implied through listing of data fields.

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