Generate pharmacovigilance adverse event report template (MedDRA). Includes EU/DE/US reporting obligations and deadlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| severity | No | mild|moderate|severe|life_threatening|fatal | |
| drug_name | No | ||
| reporter_type | No | healthcare_professional|patient|other | |
| event_description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose output format, that it only generates a template (no submission), permissions, or side effects. The only behavioral detail is the inclusion of regulatory deadlines, which is minimal.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not explain what the agent should expect as output, how the inputs influence the generated template, or any limitations. This is inadequate for a tool with four parameters.
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 descriptions cover 50% of parameters (severity, reporter_type), but the tool description adds no meaning for the remaining ones (drug_name, event_description). With half the parameters undocumented, the description fails to compensate, leaving a significant gap.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Generate') and a precise resource ('pharmacovigilance adverse event report template') plus MedDRA context. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools, which cover trials, interactions, and compliance checks.
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 context for when to use the tool: generating an AE report template with EU/DE/US regulatory details. It implies use for pharmacovigilance reporting but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, which keeps it at a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.