BioMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a search/read operation (implied by 'Search' and 'Returns'), provides detailed information about what data is returned (6 specific data points), and explains the classification system with severity levels. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond what's in the schema.

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, return data listing, and classification explanation. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Minor deduction because the classification explanation could be slightly more concise, but overall it's efficient with no wasted sentences.

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 don't need description), 100% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does well by providing prerequisite guidance, behavioral context about what data is returned, and classification explanations. It could slightly improve by mentioning authentication (api_key parameter) or rate limits, but covers most essential context for a search tool.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It provides general context about recall classifications but doesn't enhance understanding of individual parameters like 'drug', 'reason', or 'since_date'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 specific action ('Search FDA drug recall records') and resource ('Enforcement database'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like openfda_adverse_searcher or openfda_device_searcher. It provides a focused scope that differentiates it from generic search tools in the list.

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 explicitly provides a prerequisite ('Use the 'think' tool FIRST to plan your research strategy!') with a clear warning symbol. This gives specific guidance on when to use this tool versus jumping directly into searching, addressing a common agent workflow issue.

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