fda_food_adverse_events

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint: true). The description reaffirms the search nature and gives examples of query patterns, but does not add extra behavioral context beyond what a 'search' implies. No contradictions with annotations.

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 very concise: three short sentences that directly convey purpose, provide usage examples, and highlight important fields. No unnecessary text.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (reports with fields like reactions, outcomes, products). It mentions count fields for aggregates, which is helpful. It could be slightly more explicit about the response structure, but it's sufficient for typical use.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (search and limit). The description adds value by providing concrete query examples and mentioning count fields, which aids in constructing effective searches 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 the tool searches FDA food adverse event reports from the CAERS database, specifying the domain (illnesses, allergic reactions, injuries from foods and dietary supplements). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fda_animal_events (animal drugs) or fda_drug_events (human drugs).

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 queries and hints about count fields, effectively guiding the agent on how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to other FDA event tools, leaving some ambiguity. Nonetheless, the examples are helpful.

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