fda_device_registrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: dataset scale (336K+ records), what the data represents, and a count field path. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits pagination/result-shape details.

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: a one-line summary, a clarifying sentence, two useful examples, and a short count-field note. No filler. The 'Count fields' line is terse but still earns its place.

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, read-only search tool, the description supplies enough query syntax, domain examples, and scale information for an agent to call it correctly. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the examples, though a brief note on the returned record shape would make it fully complete.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds domain-specific value examples for the 'search' parameter, such as 'products.product_code:HQY' and 'products.openfda.regulation_number:886.5850', plus a count-field hint, going beyond generic query syntax.

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' with a concrete resource: 'medical device establishment registrations & listings.' It also clarifies what question the tool answers ('Where devices are manufactured and which devices are made at each establishment'), which distinguishes it from sibling FDA device tools like fda_device_events, fda_device_classification, and fda_device_recalls.

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?

Provides clear usage context with two concrete example searches by product code and regulation number, making it easy to see when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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