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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the breadth of sources, the nationwide rarity of MFDS_INNO records, and the pipeline nature of MFDS_TRIAL, but it does not describe what a returned record looks like, result ordering, or pagination behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by source enumeration and specific agency guidance. It is appropriately sized, though the 'strong signal' remark is contextual rather than strictly necessary for invocation.

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?

The description and schema together cover the main invocation needs for a 5-parameter search tool. However, with no output schema, the description leaves return-value shape, result interpretation, and pagination unexplained, which limits completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by explaining that MFDS_INNO is a strong signal due to only 136 existing nationwide and that MFDS_TRIAL represents pipeline data.

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 identifies the tool as searching regulatory records across all indexed companies and enumerates the covered agencies and approval types. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tool search_companies, but the resource type 'regulatory records' makes the distinction implicit.

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 actionable routing guidance for specific agency values, such as using MFDS_INNO for Innovative Medical Device designations and MFDS_TRIAL for pipeline trials. It gives clear context for how to narrow searches, but it does not explicitly state when to choose search_approvals over sibling tools like search_companies.

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