fda_drug_ndc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the dataset has 132K+ records, each entry contains product data, active ingredients, packaging info, and openfda annotations. It also discloses count fields and example query syntax. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but with read-only annotation the safety profile is clear.

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: an overview sentence, a list of searchable fields, example queries with explanations, and count fields. Every line earns its place, and the format makes key information scannable. It is concise given the richness of query-syntax guidance.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description explains the data scope, typical fields, and query patterns. It does not explicitly mention pagination behavior of the 'limit' parameter, but the schema already describes that. Overall, it gives an agent enough context to 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (both params have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain-specific search examples for the 'search' parameter and lists count fields, enhancing meaning beyond the generic schema examples. This provides practical guidance on constructing effective queries.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the NDC Directory — National Drug Code product listings.' It clearly identifies the tool as a search over drug products and distinguishes it from sibling FDA tools by mentioning the NDC focus and listing searchable fields like brand name, DEA schedule, and pharmacological class.

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 via examples like searching for brand names, DEA schedules, and dosage forms. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance relative to siblings like fda_drug_labels or fda_approved_drugs.

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