faers_get_report

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful cost/behavior context the annotations don't: the record is unprojected and averages ~72 KB, warning the agent about payload size. It doesn't mention pagination or error behavior for missing IDs, but the size disclosure is valuable.

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 action and scope, then the differentiator and size warning. Zero waste.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety. It supplies the key behavioral fact (unprojected, large) that structured fields don't. Only usage routing against siblings is thin.

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 parameter schema already documents the ID format, pattern, plain 8-digit form, and hyphenated fallback. The description adds nothing beyond 'by Safety Report ID'. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb+resource: retrieve one complete ICSR by Safety Report ID. The claim of being 'the only tool that returns an unprojected record' differentiates it from the many projection-oriented siblings, though it doesn't name a specific alternative.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The 'only tool' claim implies it's for full-record retrieval vs siblings, but an agent gets no condition for choosing it over faers_search_cases or faers_raw_search.

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