fda_drug_recalls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds example query fields but does not disclose pagination behavior or result structure. Since annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers limit, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

One-sentence description plus three concise bullet examples. No filler, all information is actionable and front-loaded with the verb. Each example earns its place by demonstrating a different search dimension.

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 readOnlyHint annotation and detailed schema for both parameters, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It lacks an output schema or mention of result fields, but for a straightforward search tool this is not a critical gap.

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 descriptions cover both parameters thoroughly (search syntax and limit constraints). The description adds concrete field names (classification, recalling_firm, reason_for_recall) not present in the schema, giving extra semantic meaning beyond the generic OpenFDA 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 uses a specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource ('FDA drug recall enforcement reports') and states the key capabilities: finding by classification, company, or reason. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fda_food_recalls or fda_drug_events by naming the exact report type.

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?

Provides concrete example searches for common use cases (Class I, company, reason), which clearly imply when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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