get_drug_adverse_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Search' implies a read-only operation, which is a positive signal, but it does not disclose potential rate limits, API authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error handling. Given that the description is minimal and lacks these details, a score of 3 reflects that it provides some behavioral context (read operation) but is far from comprehensive.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It leads with the purpose, then lists arguments in a clear key-value format. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or excessive length. It is appropriately sized for a tool with only two parameters.

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?

The tool has an output schema (context signal) so return values are likely covered there, reducing the description's burden. However, there are no annotations, and the description omits details such as pagination, rate limits, or usage constraints that would be valuable for a search tool interacting with an external API. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete for a production context.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for its parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly defining both 'drug_name' and 'limit': 'drug_name: The name of the drug.' and 'limit: Number of results to return (default 5).' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults, though the explanations are brief.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search OpenFDA for adverse events associated with a drug.' It uses a specific verb (Search) and resource (OpenFDA adverse events), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_drug_label' that focuses on drug labels. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like search_drug_label. A user would need external knowledge to decide which tool fits their need.

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