fda_device_enforcement

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by noting that records before June 2012 may lack some fields, and by mentioning count fields. This helps the agent understand data completeness and available aggregations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the search nature.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses clear structure with examples and notes, every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, query examples, data quality notes, and count fields. It lacks information about the output fields or structure, but given the simplicity and common OpenFDA format, this is acceptable. The context is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides example search queries that demonstrate syntax, adding marginal value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. However, it does not explain each parameter further or clarify edge cases.

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: searching FDA device recall enforcement reports. It specifies the resource (FDA device enforcement) and the action (search), and distinguishes from sibling tools like fda_device_recalls by focusing on enforcement reports rather than general recalls or events.

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 example queries and explains the classification system, but it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives like fda_device_recalls or fda_device_events. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or which sibling is more appropriate for specific tasks.

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