search_fda_device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it 'automatically determines optimal search strategy', which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but doesn't detail rate limits, authentication needs, or other traits.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key feature. It's front-loaded with the main action and could be slightly improved by structuring usage hints, but it's well-sized with no wasted words.

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 tool has annotations covering safety and idempotency, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description is reasonably complete. It adds value by explaining the unified search approach, though it lacks usage guidelines.

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 the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description mentions 'identifiers or descriptive information' and 'automatically determines optimal search strategy', which adds some high-level context but no specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 performs a 'search' operation on FDA devices and accepts 'any combination of identifiers or descriptive information', which is specific. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings since there are none, so it can't achieve the highest score for sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or specific scenarios. It only mentions it 'automatically determines optimal search strategy', which is a feature but not usage guidance.

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