faers_time_trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the aggregation is exact because the receivedate histogram ignores limit, and result buckets are keyed 'time' rather than 'term'. That is real added value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second and third sentences are implementation notes rather than padding, though the fragmentation and mid-sentence line break make it slightly less polished than it could be.

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-value documentation is not required. The description still supplies the two things an agent would otherwise misread (exactness under limit, and the 'time' key), leaving little missing for a 5-parameter read-only aggregation tool.

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 all five parameters (drug_name, events, date_from, date_to, raw_filter) are already documented in the schema, including the date pairing constraint and the Lucene example. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming receivedate as the underlying date field, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: a yearly reporting trend for a drug, aggregated from receivedate. That is clear enough to distinguish it from case-lookup siblings like faers_search_cases or faers_get_report, though it never names a sibling explicitly (e.g. faers_count_by_field) to sharpen 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?

Usage is implied by the framing (temporal trend analysis) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative tool named for the same job. The note that 'count=receivedate returns a complete date histogram irrespective of limit' hints at method rather than at when to prefer this tool.

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