Read an FDA label section

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those flags: it returns the label's own text under its headings, cites set id/version/date, and explicitly says so when the section is absent. This is useful without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adding the key behavioral nuance and missing-section handling. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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, rich annotations, and enum-based topic parameter, the description covers the essential behavior well. It could add guidance on how to choose between 'drug' and 'setid', but the schema already describes those fields, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 67%, with 'drug' and 'setid' already documented in the schema and 'topic' fully enumerated. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond saying 'one topic' and the missing-section behavior, so the schema carries most of the semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the exact resource: one topic of the official FDA label, rendered as the label's own text under its headings. It also names the metadata cited (set id, version, date), which makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling search tools.

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 the use case: fetch a specific labeled section from an FDA label and get the label's own wording. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_label or find_drug, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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