fda_device_udi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by warning that booleans are stored as strings ('true'/'false') and by illustrating valid query patterns for fields like is_rx and mri_safety. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a critical data-format note, four illustrative search examples, and a compact count-fields line. Every part earns its place, and the most important information is 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 read-only search tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, key searchable fields, example queries, and a data-type quirk. An agent has enough context to construct valid searches and interpret results appropriately.

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 baseline is 3, but the description clearly adds value by giving concrete OpenFDA query syntax examples, field names, and count fields for the search parameter. The limit parameter is already fully described in the schema, so no additional explanation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search the Global Unique Device Identification Database (GUDID)') and enumerates what the records contain (description, MRI safety, product codes, sterilization). This clearly differentiates it from related FDA device tools like fda_device_events or fda_device_classification.

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 makes it clear this tool is for querying GUDID device records, giving concrete search examples and count fields. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

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