openfda_label_searcher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's function and content scope, including specific label sections searched. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements (beyond the api_key parameter), error handling, or response format. The prerequisite warning adds useful context but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits.

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 and critical prerequisite. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second gives essential usage guidance, and the subsequent bullets and list clarify searchable content without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 (7 parameters, search functionality) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, and content scope effectively. However, with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like rate limits or authentication nuances, leaving minor gaps.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond implying searchable content areas (e.g., 'indications', 'dosage') that align with some parameters. It provides marginal value over the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 as searching FDA drug product labels for prescribing information, specifying the resource (FDA drug labels) and verb (search). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'openfda_label_getter' by focusing on search functionality rather than retrieval, and lists specific content areas (e.g., indications, dosage) to clarify scope.

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 implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on label search (vs. adverse events, approvals, etc.), though it doesn't name specific alternatives. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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