openfda_approval_searcher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's search behavior (returns multiple types of drug approval information), mentions the prerequisite 'think' tool requirement, and indicates it's for verification purposes. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs (though api_key parameter suggests optional auth), or pagination behavior (implied by page/limit parameters but not explicitly described).

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: first states what it does, then prerequisite warning, then what information it returns, and finally when to use it. No wasted words, and the warning emoji draws appropriate attention to the important prerequisite.

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 tool has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), 6 parameters with 100% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, prerequisite, returned information types, and use case. However, for a search tool with multiple parameters, it could better explain how searches work (e.g., are parameters AND/OR combined, what happens when multiple are provided).

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 the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions searching by 'drug name' and returns 'application numbers' which map to parameters, but doesn't explain parameter interactions, search logic, or how multiple parameters combine. The description focuses on what the tool does rather than how to use the parameters.

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 with specific verb ('Search') and resource ('FDA drug approval records from Drugs@FDA database'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'openfda_approval_getter' by being a search tool rather than a getter, and explicitly mentions what information it returns (application numbers, brand/generic names, formulations, etc.).

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 explicit usage guidance with a prerequisite warning ('⚠️ PREREQUISITE: Use the 'think' tool FIRST to plan your research strategy!') and states when to use it ('Useful for verifying if a drug is FDA-approved and when'). It differentiates from other FDA tools by specifying it searches approval records specifically, not adverse events, labels, or other data types.

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