search_ivd

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the fixed 5-row behavior, summary-only results, official-source verbatim returns, reviewed-only scope, and deployment/procurement caveats. This is rich, safety-relevant behavioral context beyond a bare search description.

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 dense but structured, with purpose, constraints, usage guidance, and data-handling warnings each earning their place. It is longer than a minimal description, but the length is justified by the safety and regulatory caveats; slightly repetitive phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value details do not need to be spelled out. The description covers purpose, row limit, summary-only results, source authenticity, and routing to sibling tools. The main gap is the lack of any parameter-usage examples or clarification of what values are valid for query and manufacturer.

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 schemas have 0% description coverage and the tool description never explains what query or manufacturer should contain, what formats are accepted, or how the optional manufacturer interacts with the required query. The parameter names alone provide minimal semantics.

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 identifies the tool as a reviewed-only TFDA compatibility alias of search_reviewed_ivd that returns 5 rows. It states a specific resource and scope, and distinguishes it from the sibling search_reviewed_ivd by the fixed row limit and reviewed-only constraint.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use alternatives: use search_reviewed_ivd for pagination/more results, and get_license for full fields of a single license number. It also gives explicit no-go constraints such as not for procurement or equivalence, and not to input patient data.

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