fda_device_pma

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful examples and count fields, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations, and the additional context is modest, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact and efficient. It leads with the core purpose, adds a brief domain explanation, then provides four concrete examples and a count-field hint. Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff, and the examples are immediately useful for an agent. This is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 does not explain the structure of returned data (e.g., fields per decision, pagination). It mentions count fields but not how results are presented. Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essentials for calling it, but an agent would not know what to expect in the response, which is a notable gap. A 3 is fair.

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% for both parameters, but the description adds concrete example search syntax (e.g., 'decision_code:APPR', 'product_code:LWP') and count fields, which enrich the meaning of the 'search' parameter beyond the schema's generic description. The 'limit' parameter is already well-documented in the schema, so no extra needed. This added value justifies a 4.

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 Premarket Approval (PMA) decisions for Class III medical devices, using a specific verb and resource. It adds domain context (PMA required for high-risk devices) and examples, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fda_device_510k or fda_device_classification, so it misses the top score for sibling distinction.

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 implies usage (for PMA decisions) and provides example search queries, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 510k, recalls). It does not state exclusions or when not to use it. The context about high-risk devices hints at applicability, but no direct comparison is made.

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