faers_demographic_profile

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for the data-quality disclosure: patientagegroup populated on ~18% of reports versus derived bands at ~55%, and that the raw_filter is ANDed onto every marginal of a contingency table. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot read off the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned dimensions, then a compact clarification of the two age representations. Two sentences, no filler; only mild density in the parenthetical coverage figures.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description supplies the caveats an analyst needs (coverage percentages, dual age encodings, filter interaction). Adequate for a read-only profiling tool, though it could note the interaction with the events/date parameters.

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%, so the parameters are already documented and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds that the derived bands are 'the same bands the stratifiers use,' which is a small semantic bonus but not new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific resource and the exact dimensions returned: sex, age, reporter qualification, and country breakdown for a drug. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never names the sibling it is distinct from (e.g., faers_count_by_field or faers_outcome_breakdown), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than the demographic-capable siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The age-methodology note is useful background but is not usage guidance.

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