search_drug_labels

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool searches and returns labeling information including specific sections, which makes it clear this is a read-only operation and hints at output content. However, it omits details about result format, pagination/limit behavior, API constraints, or rate limits.

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, with the action and purpose front-loaded ('Search FDA drug labels using OpenFDA API') and the return content summarized immediately. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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?

The tool has four optional parameters, all fully described in the schema, and the description states the output content, which makes it minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could have been more complete by explaining pagination/limit interplay, clarifying the response structure, or distinguishing this from sibling tools.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, defaults, and examples (100% schema description coverage), including clear examples for 'search' and 'count'. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond indicating the general search capability, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search FDA drug labels using OpenFDA API') and lists the categories of returned information (indications, contraindications, warnings, adverse reactions). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this general label search from sibling tools like get_drug_warnings or get_drug_indications, which cover similar content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as get_drug_warnings, get_drug_indications, and get_drug_adverse_reactions exist but are not referenced, and there are no exclusion criteria or preferred contexts described.

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