lookup_device_submission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently notes that De Novo grants are stored in the 510(k) endpoint (not a separate one), and that supplement suffixes are stripped before lookup. These are non-obvious behavioral details that add real value beyond the basic lookup operation.

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 three sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences provide essential detail about pathway handling and suffix stripping without redundancy or filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It sufficiently covers the main lookup behavior, all applicable pathways, and an important edge case (suffix handling). It could mention error conditions (e.g., not found), but that's a minor gap for a single-parameter lookup tool with an 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 already describes the 'number' parameter with case-insensitivity. The description adds concrete format examples (K203571, DEN160026, P230044, H230044) and explains that supplement suffixes are stripped, which clarifies input expectations significantly beyond the schema field description.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a CDRH device submission by its number.' It also distinguishes itself by explicitly covering all four device pathways (510(k), De Novo, PMA, HDE), which separates it from sibling tools that handle other submission types or lookups.

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 on when to use the tool: to look up a submission by its number, including examples for each pathway. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the clear scope and examples imply appropriate usage. No exclusions or misconceptions are introduced.

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