search_device_adverse_events

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explains parameters and provides an example query, which adds some behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or auth requirements—leaving gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded: a clear purpose sentence followed by a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 simplicity (search with 4 optional params) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, param details, and example. A minor omission: no explanation of pagination beyond skip/limit, but this is adequately implied.

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. The Args section adds meaningful explanations: 'search: openFDA query (e.g. ...)', 'limit: Max results (1-1000)', 'skip: Offset for pagination', 'count: Field to count'. These go beyond the schema's titles and types, providing clear semantics.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('FDA medical device adverse event (MDR) reports'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on medical device adverse events, not drugs or other device categories.

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 context (searching adverse events) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, such as 'Use this for MDR reports; for drug adverse events, use search_drug_adverse_events.' No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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