fda_nsde

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming it is a search (read) operation. It adds behavioral context by explaining the query syntax (e.g., field operators) and examples, which helps the agent anticipate the tool's behavior. 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: a clear purpose statement followed by specific usage guidelines and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 the lack of an output schema and the tool's search nature, the description could be more complete by explaining the return format or pagination behavior. It provides query syntax and examples, but does not describe what fields are returned or how to handle large result sets. This is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 has 100% coverage, so the description does not need to replicate parameter details. However, it adds value by illustrating how to use the 'search' parameter with examples and special syntax (e.g., '_exists_', '_missing_'). This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 the purpose clearly: 'Search NDC SPL Data Elements — comprehensive drug product data.' It identifies the specific resource (NDC SPL Data Elements) and action (search). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fda_drug_ndc, so it loses some points.

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 specific usage guidance: use '_missing_:marketing_end_date' for currently marketed products and '_exists_:marketing_end_date' for discontinued ones. It also includes example searches. This helps the agent understand when and how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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