fda_tobacco_problems

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: query syntax examples, count field hints, and dataset composition. It does not detail pagination or response format, but this is acceptable given the read-only annotation and simple search tool.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by example queries and count field hints. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description needs to convey enough to use the tool effectively. It provides example queries, count field suggestions, and dataset context. It could mention response shape or result fields, but for a straightforward search tool with well-described parameters, it is largely complete.

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%, covering both `limit` and `search`. The description supplements this with example query values and mentions count fields, adding practical meaning beyond the schema. This goes beyond the baseline 3.

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 'Search tobacco product problem reports' and provides specific scope (~1.3K reports) and content categories. The resource is well-defined and distinguishes from other FDA tools by topic, though it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives.

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 gives clear context about when to use the tool (searching tobacco problem reports), describes dataset composition (e-cigarettes dominate), and provides concrete example searches. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions but is sufficient for an agent to determine appropriate use.

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