fda_device_pma

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context like query syntax, example fields, and count fields. No contradictions or missing critical info.

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 (7 lines) and front-loaded with purpose, followed by well-organized examples. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description mentions count fields and gives query examples. For a search tool, this is sufficient to understand behavior. Minor gap: no explanation of default return format.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds value by providing concrete usage examples (e.g., 'decision_code:APPR') that interpret the generic parameter descriptions.

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 'Search Premarket Approval (PMA) decisions for Class III medical devices.' with a specific verb and resource, and the context of Class III devices distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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 provides example search queries (decision_code, product_code, etc.) and notes count fields, which implies when to use (for high-risk device approvals) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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