fda_device_events

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals the safe read-only nature, lowering the bar. The description adds the MAUDE domain context and example fields, but does not disclose additional behaviors like response format, pagination, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 single purpose statement followed by two clearly formatted example queries. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler. This is an appropriately sized description for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has only two well-documented parameters and a readOnly annotation, making it relatively simple. The description explains the MAUDE data source and provides field-specific examples. It does not mention the return format, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema, but the description is otherwise complete enough for an agent to select and 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?

The schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (limit and search), so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain-specific example fields (device.generic_name, event_type) that are not in the schema, giving the agent concrete, relevant usage for this FDA dataset, which goes beyond the generic schema examples.

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 function: 'Search FDA medical device adverse event reports (MAUDE)' and enumerates the report types (injuries, malfunctions, deaths). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like fda_device_recalls or fda_drug_events by specifying the exact resource and scope.

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 provides a clear context for use—searching MAUDE adverse event reports—with two relevant example queries demonstrating how to search by device and event type. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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