fda_510k_recent

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds value by explaining the mandatory date filter and the token-exact matching behavior, which are non-obvious. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. Every sentence provides essential information—purpose, always-on filter, and critical matching nuance—making it highly efficient.

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 presence of an output schema and good annotations, the description covers the primary behavior. It could optionally mention that results are limited by max_results or that response_format controls output type, but for a simple retrieval tool with 0 required params, it is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the behavior of 'days' implicitly (date filter always applied) and 'query' (wildcard usage), but does not elaborate on 'max_results' or 'response_format', leaving some parameters underspecified.

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 retrieves 'Recent FDA 510(k) clearances via openFDA.' This unambiguously identifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fda_recalls_recent.

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 explains that a date filter is always applied and gives specific guidance on using wildcards for partial matches due to token-exact matching. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or alternative contexts.

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