fda_drug_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the dataset size (over 20 million reports), the event types included, and exact OpenFDA query field paths. It does not describe return format, pagination, or what happens when no results are found, but with annotations covering the safety behavior, this is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose and dataset scope, then provides exactly three illustrative example queries that cover distinct, useful search patterns. Every sentence serves a purpose; there is no filler or repetition.

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 free-form search tool with a query-language parameter, the description plus the schema's search syntax documentation cover the main things an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only noticeable gap is the lack of an output schema or any statement about the shape of returned records (e.g., whether it returns individual reports or aggregates). Still, the name and description make the domain unambiguous, so the tool is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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, describing both 'limit' and the generic OpenFDA query syntax for 'search'. The description adds domain-specific parameter semantics by showing concrete field paths like 'patient.drug.openfda.brand_name', 'patient.drug.openfda.generic_name', 'serious', and 'patient.reaction.reactionmeddrapt'. This goes beyond the schema's generic examples and helps an agent construct valid, domain-appropriate queries.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('FDA adverse drug event reports (FAERS)'), and the scope of data ('side effects, hospitalizations, deaths'). It further enumerates search dimensions (drug name, reaction, seriousness). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fda_drug_labels, fda_device_events, and fda_food_adverse_events without requiring schema inspection.

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 plain that this tool searches adverse event reports, and the examples show how to query by drug, seriousness, and reaction. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with closely related FDA siblings (e.g., fda_drug_labels for labeling, fda_device_events for devices, fda_drug_recalls for recalls). Usage context is implied rather than stated with explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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