get_all_application_numbers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination support', which is useful context, but fails to describe other key traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all available FDA application numbers') and adds necessary context ('with pagination support'). There is no wasted wording, and it effectively communicates key information in a compact form.

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 tool's complexity (a read operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and hints at behavior (pagination), but doesn't address return values, error handling, or other contextual details needed for full understanding, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'page' and 'pageSize' parameters including defaults and constraints. The description adds value by mentioning 'pagination support', which contextualizes the parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get all available') and resource ('FDA application numbers in the DailyMed database'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_application_numbers', which might retrieve similar data with filtering, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 retrieving all application numbers with pagination, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_application_numbers' or other 'get_all_' siblings. It mentions pagination support, which hints at context for large datasets, but lacks clear when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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