gov.fda-drug-events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions return fields but does not describe pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, inputs, and outputs. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no redundant or extraneous 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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of return fields but lacks detailed structure or examples. It is minimally adequate but could be more comprehensive for a tool with no output schema.

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?

The schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (drug and reaction). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for these. The 'limit' parameter lacks any description in both schema and description, so the overall contribution is minimal, consistent with the baseline for high coverage but missing coverage for one parameter.

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 adverse drug event reports (FAERS) by drug name. It includes key details like optional filtering by MedDRA reaction term and specifies return fields (seriousness flags, patient demographics, reactions, drugs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gov.fda-animalvet-events and gov.fda-device-events.

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 a clear context for usage: searching human drug adverse events. It implicitly differentiates from siblings, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. The guidance is sufficient but lacks explicit exclusions.

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