Search OpenFDA Drug Events

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

With no annotations provided, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function, omitting details like rate limits, data source (openFDA), query syntax expectations, or pagination behavior. This is insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could benefit from slight expansion for completeness.

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 simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks context about the query syntax, API sources, and result limitations, but the presence of an output schema reduces the burden for return value explanation.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema (e.g., 'by drug name' hints at search usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 states the verb 'Search', the resource 'FDA adverse event reports', and the criteria 'by drug name or other criteria'. It clearly differentiates from siblings like search_clinical_trials or search_chembl_compounds by specifying the exact data source.

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 implies usage for searching adverse events, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for clinical trials use search_clinical_trials). No when-not or prerequisite information is given.

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