fda_device_recalls

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

Annotations already cover safety traits: readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by naming the RES system and providing query syntax examples. It doesn't disclose result behavior, sorting, or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden to a moderate level.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by useful examples. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or 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 simple read-only search tool with fully described parameters and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. The only gap is the absence of any note about the output shape, but with no output schema, a brief mention of return fields could have helped.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds concrete example searches such as 'openfda.device_name:"pacemaker"' and 'reason_for_recall:"software"', which go beyond the schema by showing realistic field usage.

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 verb and resource: 'Search FDA medical device recall reports (RES system).' It also specifies the main search dimensions (name, manufacturer, reason for recall), so an agent knows the tool's scope. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from similar FDA siblings like fda_device_enforcement or fda_food_recalls, which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives clear use-case context: find device recall reports by name, manufacturer, or reason. The example searches reinforce the intended query patterns. It doesn't state a when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the read-only, recall-specific framing is clear enough for selection.

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