fda_historical_docs

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it notes the date range, that the text is OCR-derived (which signals possible OCR errors), and demonstrates query syntax. It does not disclose response format or pagination, but the annotation already covers read-safety.

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 the core purpose, followed by three well-chosen examples that each illustrate a different query pattern. Every sentence adds value without redundant 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?

The description is fairly complete for a search tool: it covers the resource, time scope, existing parameter semantics, and provides practical examples. The main gap is the lack of any mention of the response format or expected fields, which would matter more due to the absence of an output schema.

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 descriptions alone cover the basic parameter formats, but the tool description goes further by providing concrete example queries using fields like doc_type, text, and year. These examples give real semantic meaning to the 'search' parameter and are especially valuable for understanding how to combine terms.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('historical FDA documents — press releases from 1913 to 2014'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also implicitly differentiates from sibling FDA tools by highlighting the historical press-release scope and OCR full-text search.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: for searching historical FDA press releases from 1913 to 2014. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions for more current FDA data, so it lacks formal 'when-not' guidance.

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