fda_drug_events

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (true) and adds context about the size ('Over 20 million reports') and the nature of data (adverse events, side effects, hospitalizations, deaths). 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?

The description is concise: one sentence followed by bulleted examples. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately useful. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description could mention the format of results (e.g., JSON) or typical fields, but it adequately covers the tool's purpose and search capabilities. The limit parameter handles pagination implicitly. For a search tool, it is fairly 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'search' and 'limit'. The description adds value by providing concrete search query examples that illustrate the syntax and field usage, enhancing understanding 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 it searches FDA adverse drug event reports, mentioning specific content (side effects, hospitalizations, deaths) and providing example queries. This differentiates it from sibling FDA tools like fda_approved_drugs or fda_drug_labels.

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 adverse events by stating 'Search by drug name, reaction, seriousness' and provides examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives among the many sibling FDA tools. No direct exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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