fda_device_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about searching the MAUDE database and event types. However, it does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or data freshness beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise at 3 lines, front-loads the purpose, and includes useful examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 without output schema, the description covers the source (MAUDE), event types, and query examples. It lacks mention of pagination or result format but is largely adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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%, but the description enriches the search parameter with example query formats (field:value, exact phrase, date ranges) that go beyond the schema's description, aiding correct parameter construction.

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 it searches FDA MAUDE adverse event reports, specifying the categories (injuries, malfunctions, deaths) and provides concrete example queries, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like fda_drug_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 does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives such as FDA device recalls or drug events. While examples are given, there is no contextual guidance for selection.

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