search_drug_adverse_events

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

Without annotations, the description adequately discloses key behaviors: the 'count' parameter returns frequency counts instead of records, and parameters like limit (1-1000) and skip (offset) imply pagination. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or data freshness.

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-structured with a clear lead sentence followed by a concise parameter list. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan for an AI agent.

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 existence of an output schema, the description reasonably omits return details. It covers all parameters, includes an example query, and notes the 'count' behavioral switch. Minor missing info on required fields or advanced query syntax, but overall adequate.

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%, but the description provides clear, explanatory text for each parameter: an example query for 'search', range for 'limit', purpose of 'skip', and the special frequency behavior of 'count'. This adds critical meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool searches FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data, which is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_drug_ndc or search_drug_labels.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., adverse events vs. drug labels). The description lacks 'when-not-to-use' or alternative suggestions.

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