fda_search_drugs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a search with safety analysis, but doesn't describe what 'safety analysis' entails (e.g., risk summaries, adverse event data), how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). This is a significant gap for a search tool with potential complexity.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Search FDA drug database with safety analysis'). There is no wasted text, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'safety analysis' includes, the format or scope of results, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a search tool with potential safety-critical implications, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how parameters interact or provide examples). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('FDA drug database'), and adds the purpose of 'safety analysis'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fda_adverse_events' or 'research_drug_safety_profile', which might also involve FDA drug safety data.

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 like 'fda_adverse_events' or 'research_drug_safety_profile'. It mentions 'safety analysis' but doesn't specify if this is for preliminary screening, regulatory checks, or other contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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