fda_historical_docs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral detail about OCR full-text search and the 1913-2014 date range, which enriches the agent's understanding beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 and well-structured: a single opening sentence states the purpose, followed by three clear example queries in a block. Every line contributes directly to the agent's capability to invoke the tool correctly and no information is redundant or padded.

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 simple two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description provides enough context to get started: scope, syntax examples, and parameter behavior. It does not list the full set of queryable fields, which could cause exploratory attempts, but the examples cover common use cases and the schema covers defaults and syntax.

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 description covers both parameters generically (limit and search syntax), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by showing dataset-specific fields in examples, such as 'doc_type:pr', 'year:1920', and 'text:"thalidomide"', which are not mentioned in the schema. This gives the agent concrete guidance on constructing real 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Search historical FDA documents — press releases from 1913 to 2014 (OCR full-text search)'. This precisely distinguishes it from other FDA tools that handle drug events, labels, devices, etc. The date range and OCR detail make the resource concrete.

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 historical FDA press releases and provides example queries that clarify search patterns. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many other FDA search tools in the sibling list, nor does it name any alternative or exclusion.

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