get_decision_document

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses it downloads PDFs from FDA servers and extracts text, and explains max_length controls output character count. It doesn't mention error cases or explicitly state read-only behavior, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 well-organized: a concise purpose sentence, a 'When to use' block, an Args list with format examples, and three concrete usage examples. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundant fluff.

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 4 parameters with format nuances and an output schema is present, so return structure need not be described. The description covers the workflow, parameter constraints, and examples. Minor gaps remain around error handling and document availability, but it's sufficiently complete for successful usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does so thoroughly. It provides exact formats for each document_type (e.g., 'K' + 6 digits for 510k_summary), clarifies supplement_number is required only for pma_supplement, and specifies max_length default (8000). This goes far beyond the bare string types in the schema.

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 opens with 'Fetch FDA regulatory decision documents' and specifies it downloads PDFs and extracts text, clearly stating the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling search_fda by emphasizing this tool retrieves full documents after a submission is found, not perform searches.

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?

An explicit 'When to use' section directs agents to use this after finding a device submission via search_fda, tying directly to sibling tool usage. It also notes the tool is 'not available via OpenFDA API,' implying a unique role, but it doesn't name exclusions for other siblings or when not to use.

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