Search FDA drug adverse event reports by drug name to identify reported side effects and safety signals. Returns a limited number of matching reports for review.
Search FDA drug adverse event reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drug | Yes | Drug name to search adverse events for | |
| limit | No | Number of results (default 5) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on result volume, typical response shape, or that results are public FAERS reports — so it earns only a baseline-with-annotations score.
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?
One short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.
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?
Safety is covered by annotations and parameters by the schema, so nothing is fatally missing for invoking the tool. However, for a search tool sitting next to two other openFDA tools, the absence of any disambiguation or result-expectation note leaves a real gap.
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%, and both parameters (drug, limit) are documented in the schema including the default of 5. The description adds no extra meaning such as accepted drug-name forms, brand vs generic handling, or matching behavior, so baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('FDA drug adverse event reports'), so an agent knows exactly what domain this touches. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as openfda_drug_search or openfda_recall_search, which would be needed for a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus openfda_drug_search (drug label info) or openfda_recall_search (recalls), despite those being obvious near-neighbors. The agent must infer the distinction from the tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.