fda_nsde

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently frames the tool as a search operation with no contradiction. It adds behavioral context beyond the annotation by revealing that marketing_end_date presence/absence determines on-market vs. discontinued status via _missing_/_exists_ syntax, which is valuable operational knowledge.

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 five compact lines with a clear front-loaded purpose, two search tips, and two examples — every sentence earns its place. There is zero filler or repetition.

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 2-parameter search tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers domain, query syntax for market status, and concrete examples. It doesn't describe result shape or pagination, but given the low complexity and read-only annotation, the gaps are minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value with dataset-specific examples like 'package_ndc:"55700-019-60"' and '_missing_:"marketing_end_date"', which demonstrate real field names and query patterns beyond the generic schema examples.

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 'Search NDC SPL Data Elements — comprehensive drug product data,' using a specific verb (Search) and a precise resource (NDC SPL Data Elements) that distinguishes it from FDA siblings like fda_drug_labels or fda_drug_ndc. The example queries ('package_ndc:"55700-019-60"') reinforce the domain-specific scope.

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 explicit query patterns: 'Use '_missing_:marketing_end_date' for products still on market' and '_exists_:marketing_end_date' for discontinued products, giving clear context for different search intents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions among siblings, so it stops short of a full 5.

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