fda_unii

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 safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful context that this is a search tool with example query formats, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or result format. No contradiction 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two concrete examples that demonstrate usage. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples are immediately actionable for an agent.

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 search tool with full schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly complete. The example queries provide the key context an agent needs to construct valid searches. The only minor gap is not describing what the response contains, but no output schema exists and the tool's purpose makes the return type fairly predictable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit and search) are already documented in the schema. The description's example searches add practical value by showing the exact query syntax for the search parameter, but this is supplemental rather than essential since the schema already explains the format.

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 UNII identifiers and links ingredient names to unique chemical IDs, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('UNII'). It distinguishes itself from sibling FDA tools by focusing on UNII identifiers, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 example searches showing how to query by UNII code or substance name, which gives clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the examples effectively communicate the intended use case.

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