faers_top_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/behavior profile is covered. The description adds the preset-field semantics but says nothing about sorting, ranking ties, result limits beyond top_n, or data-source caveats; with annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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, purpose first and the sibling relationship second, with zero filler. Everything earns its place.

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 structure needn't be explained, and the schema documents all parameters. The description adequately covers purpose and how it relates to the parent tool, though it omits why one would choose the top-N preset over full field counts (e.g., default top_n=20 is not surfaced in prose).

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 six parameters (top_n default/range, date window pairing, drug_name format, raw_filter Lucene syntax, serious_only) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond implying the reaction field; 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+resource ('Top MedDRA preferred terms reported with a drug') and then explicitly positions itself as a preset convenience form of faers_count_by_field with the reaction field, which distinguishes it from that sibling without opening either schema.

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?

By naming faers_count_by_field and stating the field is preset to reaction, it implicitly tells the agent when to reach for this tool (reaction counting) versus the general one (any field). It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or other alternatives, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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