faers_outcome_breakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only added behavioral fact is the concurrent single-round-trip execution model, which is genuinely useful but thin; nothing is said about result limits, cardinality caps, or how marginals are returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause carries information: the two output dimensions and the round-trip efficiency property.

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 and 100% parameter documentation in the schema, the description need not explain return values or parameter formats. It is essentially complete for invocation purposes, though it could have used one clause to distinguish this breakdown tool from the other aggregation siblings.

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 every parameter (drug_name, events, date_from/date_to pairing, raw_filter) is already documented in the schema, including the Lucene clause syntax and the required pairing rule. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline 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?

The description names a concrete subject (reaction outcomes and seriousness criteria for a drug), so an agent can tell it produces an outcome/seriousness aggregation. However, it gives no differentiation from aggregation siblings like faers_count_by_field, faers_top_events, or faers_demographic_profile, so an agent must guess which aggregation tool to pick.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'in one concurrent round trip' hints that this tool is a more efficient alternative to issuing separate outcome and seriousness queries, but that is an efficiency hint, not a routing rule, and no alternative sibling is named.

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