fda_device_registrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety level is known. The description adds useful behavioral details like example query syntax and a count field, but it does not describe the response format, pagination, or any other operational traits. It neither contradicts nor deeply enriches the behavioral picture beyond the schema.

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 compact and well-structured: the opening sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief explanatory line, then illustrative examples, and a final note on count fields. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid overview, query examples, and data scope. It doesn't outline the exact result fields, but the statement about 'which devices are made at each establishment' implies the nature of the response. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool effectively.

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 at 100% coverage; the description goes further by showing concrete search syntax for the 'search' parameter with FDA-specific fields (e.g., 'products.product_code:HQY'). It also notes a count field, giving practical meaning beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a search over 'medical device establishment registrations & listings' and explains the data's meaning ('Where devices are manufactured and which devices are made at each establishment'). This specific verb-resource pairing and the outline of the data distinguish it from sibling FDA tools like fda_device_events or fda_device_recalls.

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 by indicating the subject matter and includes concrete query examples (e.g., by product code or regulation number). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions for other FDA queries.

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