fda_historical_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's additional detail about OCR full-text search and the time range adds value beyond the safe read behavior. It discloses that the tool searches OCR-processed documents from 1913 to 2014, which is useful for agent reasoning.

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 two concise paragraphs: one sentence for purpose and scope, followed by a structured list of examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The front-loaded purpose is immediately clear.

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 gives enough context to select the tool (historical press releases, OCR full-text) but does not describe the output format or available fields in the response. Since there is no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what fields (e.g., doc_type, text, year) are returned. The examples hint at fields but do not fully specify.

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 value by providing concrete query examples for the search parameter (e.g., 'doc_type:pr+AND+text:"poison prevention packaging"') that illustrate the query syntax and fields. The limit parameter is already well-described in 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 historical FDA documents — press releases from 1913 to 2014 (OCR full-text search).' It specifies the resource, action, and scope, distinguishing it from other FDA tools like fda_approved_drugs or fda_device_events that deal with different data types.

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 that imply usage for historical press releases with a specific query syntax, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude other scenarios. The examples serve as implicit guidance, but lacking explicit context for selection.

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