fda_unii

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it searches but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. This is adequate given the annotations, but not exceptional.

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 sentences with bulleted examples. It front-loads the purpose and uses minimal, effective wording. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description could mention typical return format or fields. However, it sufficiently conveys the tool's function for a simple search tool, and annotations cover safety. Slightly incomplete but not deficient.

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 specific field names ('unii', 'substance_name') and usage examples not in the generic schema description. This helps the agent construct correct 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 the tool searches UNII (Unique Ingredient Identifiers) linking ingredient names to chemical IDs, with specific examples for querying by UNII code or substance name. It distinguishes itself from sibling FDA tools by focusing on this specific identifier system.

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?

While the description implies usage through examples, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus similar FDA substance tools like fda_substance. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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