fda_drug_recalls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat these. It adds value by demonstrating query syntax with field examples, but it does not describe the return format, pagination, or any limitations. The description neither contradicts annotations nor adds significant behavioral context beyond the schema.

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: two opening sentences plus three example queries. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides actionable examples, with no unnecessary fluff. Every sentence 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?

The description is adequate for a simple search tool with well-documented parameters, but it does not mention the default behavior when no search is provided (since no params are required) or what the response contains. With no output schema, the agent must infer the result structure, which could lead to errors downstream. A note about the response format would improve completeness.

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 schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the tool description enriches the 'search' parameter by giving specific field names like 'classification', 'recalling_firm', and 'reason_for_recall' with exact syntax examples. This goes beyond the generic OpenFDA query syntax and helps the agent craft effective searches.

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') and a specific resource ('FDA drug recall enforcement reports'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from other FDA tools by focusing on drug recalls specifically, and the provided field examples (classification, company, reason) further clarify the domain.

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 concrete examples of how to construct queries, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like fda_device_recalls or fda_food_recalls. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description. The examples imply usage, but exclusions are missing.

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