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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data comes from openFDA public-domain records, returns specific fields, and mentions entity resolution. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or error behavior. The price mention adds transparency.

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, front-loaded with an engaging question. It efficiently conveys purpose, filtering options, output, source, and price. Every sentence is informative, though the second sentence is somewhat dense. It could be slightly more concise without losing content.

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 10 parameters (all described in schema), no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main use case, filters, and output. It mentions the data source (openFDA) and price. It lacks details on pagination or error handling, but these are reasonable omissions. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by stating the output fields (applicant company, device name, product code, decision date) which are not in the schema. It also clarifies the 'company' parameter with 'suffix/punctuation-insensitive' and 'entity-resolved where possible', going 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 the tool's purpose: searching FDA device 510(k) clearances and PMA approvals by various criteria. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fda_approvals_drugs and fda_recalls_search by specifying 'device' and 'medical device'. It also mentions specific outputs and target users.

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: it answers 'Which companies just cleared or got FDA approval for a medical device?' and lists filtering options. It implies when to use this tool via the question and the 'fresh target list for sellers' phrase. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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