faers_describe_fields

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the catalogue includes 'traps' (worth flagging as non-obvious behavioral context). There's no output schema shown to the agent in the prompt despite has_output_schema=true, but the description doesn't need to explain return values further.

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 what the tool returns, followed by a concrete when-to-use instruction. No 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?

For a read-only lookup/catalogue tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is sufficient: it tells the agent what it contains and when to call it instead of guessing field paths.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'category' param is documented with an enum and description. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics but the baseline for a well-covered single optional param is high.

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 (FAERS field paths) and what it returns (coded values, traps, stratifiers). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like faers_raw_search or faers_count_by_field, which are data-retrieval tools rather than a field catalogue.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to consult this before writing a raw_filter or count_field rather than guessing a path. This names the alternatives and the condition that selects this tool, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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