fda_device_udi

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Note: Booleans are stored as strings', example query patterns, and count fields. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Includes examples and notes without unnecessary verbosity. Slightly more compact would be ideal, but effectively structured.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, detailed examples, behavioral note, and count field guidance. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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%, but the description adds meaning through real-world examples and notes about boolean fields and count fields, enhancing the agent's understanding of query construction beyond the schema.

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 the Global Unique Device Identification Database (GUDID)' and lists specific record details, distinguishing it from sibling FDA device tools like fda_device_510k 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 provides example searches and field mentions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No direct comparison to siblings.

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