Search a label for a term

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds modest context beyond that—the exhaustive scope ('every paragraph') and the return shape (section heading and topic)—but with an output schema present, some of this is redundant. It does not contradict 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?

A single sentence of roughly 25 words that is fully front-loaded with the core action and adds helpful parenthetical examples without waste. Every clause earns its place.

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 and safety annotations, the return values and safety profile are already covered, so the description need not restate them. The main gap is that only one of three parameters is semantically explained and there is no usage routing versus the three siblings, leaving the drug/setid relationship ambiguous for a tool that has multiple identifier options.

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 only 33% (only 'drug' is described). The description compensates for the required 'term' parameter by giving concrete examples of what a term can be (another drug, grapefruit, alcohol, a condition), but it does not clarify 'setid' beyond what is referenced in the 'drug' description, leaving that parameter under-explained.

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 and resource ('Finds every paragraph of the official FDA label') with a well-defined scope (every paragraph mentioning a term) and states the output (section heading and topic). It is implicitly distinct from siblings find_drug and label_section, though it never names them, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the siblings find_drug, label_section, or recalls_shortages. No exclusions, prerequisites, or routing conditions are given; usage is only implied by the tool's nature.

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