faers_raw_search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: pre-flight validation of balanced quotes/parentheses, detection of the '+AND+' mistake, and that the same compact projection and ceilings apply as elsewhere. The projection/ceiling reference is left vague, but the validation disclosure is genuine added value.

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 sentences with no filler, and the identity of the tool ('escape hatch') is front-loaded. The trailing clause about projection and ceilings is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the non-obvious input-validation behavior. For a seven-parameter openWorld tool it is nearly complete; the omitted piece is explicit routing guidance against the many structured 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including the annotate-only semantics of drug_name. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb (run) and resource (arbitrary Lucene query against the FAERS endpoint), and the 'escape hatch' framing immediately distinguishes it from the structured siblings like faers_search_cases. It stops short of naming which siblings it supersedes in which situation, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Escape hatch' implies the usage condition — reach for this when the curated tools cannot express what you need — but the description never states that explicitly or names an alternative. The guidance is implied rather than stated; a reader must infer when this beats faers_search_cases.

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