fda_adverse_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'with analysis,' hinting at additional processing, but doesn't clarify what this entails—such as data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get adverse event reports for a drug with analysis.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of adverse event data, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address key aspects like data freshness, analysis details, or error handling, leaving users with an incomplete picture of the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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 50%, with only 'drugName' documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying analysis is included, but it doesn't explain parameter semantics like the format for 'dateRange' or what 'analysis' involves. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate, resulting in a baseline score.

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 purpose: 'Get adverse event reports for a drug with analysis.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('adverse event reports'), and scope ('for a drug with analysis'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'research_drug_safety_profile' or 'research_safety_details,' which might have overlapping functions.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'fda_search_drugs' or 'research_safety_details.' Without this context, users must infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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