openfda_device_searcher

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 effectively describes the tool's default filtering behavior (genomics/diagnostic devices), mentions the database source (FDA's MAUDE), and specifies the types of issues searched (malfunctions, failures, patient injuries). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the optional API key, or pagination 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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, prerequisite warning, search scope details, and default behavior explanation. It's appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool, though the prerequisite warning could be more concise. Every sentence adds value.

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's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description provides good context about the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, and default behavior. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the essential context but could benefit from more behavioral details like rate limits or error conditions.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about the default genomics_only filter behavior but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 searches FDA device adverse event reports (MAUDE) for medical device issues, specifying the resource (FDA database) and verb (search). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on device adverse events rather than other FDA data types like approvals, labels, or recalls.

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 to use the 'think' tool first for research strategy planning. It also specifies when to use alternatives by explaining the default genomics-only filter and how to disable it for broader searches.

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