fda_device_classification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the return content (device class, product codes, definitions) and the count fields, which go beyond the annotations. It also notes the scale (~1,700 types) without contradicting any annotation.

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: it starts with the core purpose, then details the output, followed by examples and count fields. It is a bit long but every sentence contributes useful information, and the examples are front-loaded. The structure aids quick scanning.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is searched, what is returned, example queries, and count fields. It does not mention pagination or limit behavior, but the limit parameter is already documented in the schema, so this is not a critical gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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% for both parameters (limit and search), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful enrichment by providing concrete example queries (e.g., 'regulation_number:872.6855', 'product_code:NOB') and explaining the search query syntax with combinators, which helps the agent craft correct queries beyond the generic schema text.

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 medical device classification data, specifies the scope (~1,700 generic device types), and lists the returned fields (device class, product codes, definitions). It also provides example search formats, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling FDA tools like fda_device_events or fda_device_510k.

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 conveys usage through examples and explains the search syntax, making it clear when this tool is appropriate (searching device classifications). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for other device-related queries (e.g., events, recalls), leaving some inference to the agent.

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