fda_device_pma

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares that this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by providing example query patterns and noting the available count fields, but it does not disclose response format, pagination behavior, or any rate limits. No contradiction with 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?

The description is well-structured and reasonably compact, with a clear opening sentence, a brief explanatory note, and a bulleted list of examples. The count fields line is a bit terse, but overall each sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary verbosity.

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 moderate complexity of an openFDA search tool, the description covers the core purpose, provides query examples, and lists count fields. It is complete enough for basic usage, though it omits details about the response structure or pagination. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the illustrative examples.

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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value beyond the schema by showing concrete example queries (e.g., 'decision_code:APPR', 'applicant:"Medtronic"') and highlighting the count fields, which illustrate the query syntax and valid field names in a way the schema alone does not.

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 states a specific action ('Search Premarket Approval (PMA) decisions for Class III medical devices') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like fda_device_510k by specifying PMA and Class III devices. The additional explanation of PMA as required for high-risk devices reinforces the tool's unique 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 gives implied usage context by explaining that PMA is for high-risk devices, which helps an agent understand when to select this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, such as using fda_device_510k for lower-risk devices.

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