find_manufacturer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that results are summaries only, that return content is raw official data not instructions to the AI, that patient data must not be input, and that results are not for procurement, equivalence, or promotional use. This is extensive behavioral disclosure beyond simple operation statements.

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 densely packed and front-loads the core behavior, but it is somewhat long and repeats similar restrictions (decision_support_only, not_for_procurement_or_equivalence, and later the advertising caveat). Each sentence contributes value given the lack of annotations, though some redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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 no annotations and three parameters, the description is complete: it names the search dimension, pagination, summary-only results, the get_license alternative, and multiple usage restrictions. The existence of an output schema covers return-value details, so nothing critical is missing for correct tool invocation.

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 0%, so the description must define parameters, and it does: 'name' is implied as manufacturer name, 'limit' is constrained to 1–5, and 'offset' is explained as pagination for viewing more results. This compensates fully for the missing schema-level parameter descriptions.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find TFDA permit rows by manufacturer name only'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from alternatives by adding 'never by applicant' and later references get_license for full-field queries. The purpose is unmistakable even before looking at parameters.

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 gives an explicit when-not condition ('never by applicant'), an alternative tool for full details ('use get_license to query a single license number'), and concrete pagination guidance (limit 1–5, use offset for more). This is strong routing guidance with no ambiguity about how to use the tool.

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