fda_drug_events

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds valuable behavioral context about the dataset size and shows realistic query syntax, helping the agent understand what kind of searches are supported.

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 with a clear purpose statement, followed by a focused list of example searches. Every sentence and example earns its place, providing high value without unnecessary fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining what kind of data is available (side effects, hospitalizations, deaths) and how to query it. It does not describe the response structure, but the examples and tool name make the expected content reasonably clear.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description goes further by providing domain-specific example queries with actual FAERS field paths (e.g., patient.drug.openfda.brand_name), making the search parameter much more actionable.

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 it searches FDA adverse drug event reports (FAERS) and lists relevant content areas (side effects, hospitalizations, deaths). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like fda_drug_labels or fda_animal_events.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (searching adverse event reports) and even gives example search patterns. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is well-defined enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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