fda_device_udi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as booleans being stored as strings ('true'/'false') and the format of example queries. This helps avoid common errors.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence serves a purpose. The example searches are structured and relevant, and the count fields summary is useful without being verbose.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers record content, query examples, and field naming quirks. It lacks details on response structure or pagination, but the limit parameter is documented in the schema, making this reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the description enriches the search parameter with concrete field examples (brand_name, is_rx, mri_safety) and count field examples. This goes beyond the generic schema description and provides actionable query syntax.

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 searching the Global Unique Device Identification Database (GUDID) and lists the types of records returned (description, MRI safety, product codes, sterilization). This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling FDA tools like fda_device_510k and 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 example searches that imply how to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison, leaving usage context mostly implicit.

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