fda_device_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations with concrete query field examples ('device.generic_name', 'event_type') and event type coverage, giving the agent additional insight into the data shape.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences plus two targeted examples. The main purpose is front-loaded)Skip; no filler or redundant content. Every element contributes to invoking the tool correctly.

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 two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and no output schema, this description is sufficient. It supplies purpose, domain context, and executable query examples. Minor missing details like pagination defaults are already captured in the parameter schema.

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% and already describes both parameters. The description adds value by providing domain-specific search examples (pacemaker, death) that illustrate the expected query format and field names, which the schema's generic openFDA syntax examples do not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('FDA medical device adverse event reports (MAUDE)') and enumerates the event categories covered ('injuries, malfunctions, deaths'). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like fda_device_recalls, fda_drug_events, and fda_device_pma.

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 clear context: use when searching medical device adverse event reports. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific phrasing ('MAUDE') makes the intended use obvious relative to sibling tools.

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