openfda_drug_enforcementSearch FDA drug enforcement reports to identify recalls, warnings, and market withdrawals for specific medications.
Query FDA enforcement reports (recalls, warnings, market withdrawals).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-25). | |
| drug_name | No | Optional drug name filter. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it offers only a one-line purpose statement. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior for what is presumably a public API. The 'limit 1-25' cap lives in the schema but no corresponding behavioral caveat is surfaced.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical adds scoping value rather than bloat. It could be slightly richer without harming conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameters need no description coverage. However, for a tool sitting among several OpenFDA/PubMed siblings, the absence of any routing guidance leaves a real gap for correct tool selection.
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 two parameters (limit range and optional drug_name filter) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the high coverage, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('FDA enforcement reports') and parenthetically enumerates the content types (recalls, warnings, market withdrawals). It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like openfda_adverse_events or openfda_drug_label, but the resource is unambiguous on its own.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the sibling OpenFDA tools. An agent must infer from the resource name alone that this is for recall/enforcement data rather than adverse events or labeling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.