faers_case_counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the structured data — that all counts are issued concurrently in a single round trip — but says nothing about latency/rate limits, result stability, or how the three count categories relate.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and a distinct secondary note about concurrency. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

With a fully described schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers what the tool returns well enough that return values need not be explained. The remaining gap is comparative context against the many overlapping counting/aggregation siblings, which an agent must resolve on its own.

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%, with every parameter (events, date_from/date_to pairing, drug_name, raw_filter, role_basis) documented in the schema itself, including the enum semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('case counts for a drug') and specifies the exact measures returned (total, serious, fatal) plus the optional event breakdown. It clearly separates this from a generic search or raw-list tool, but never names the close siblings (faers_count_by_field, faers_top_events, faers_outcome_breakdown) that an agent must choose between.

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?

Usage is only implied by the capability statement: use it when you want case counts for one drug, with or without an event breakdown. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative counting tools in the sibling set, so routing is left to inference.

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