search_device_adverse_events

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns device details, event descriptions, and patient outcomes, and lists filterable parameters. However, it omits information about data source freshness, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond what schema provides, or any side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with purpose and key capabilities. Every sentence adds value—no redundant or filler content.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and typical use cases. It mentions the key return fields (device details, event descriptions, patient outcomes) and lists major filtering dimensions. Minor omission: does not indicate that event type enum includes 'Other' (though schema covers it). Overall sufficient for an agent to understand scope.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minor narrative context by grouping parameters (e.g., 'by device name, brand, manufacturer...'), but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions. No new parameter constraints or format details are added.

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 clearly states it searches the FDA MDR database for device adverse events, listing specific searchable criteria (device name, brand, manufacturer, event type, date) and mentions retrieving a specific report by reportNumber. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., drug adverse events, other device searches) by specifying 'device' and 'adverse events'.

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 implies usage for finding device adverse events, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_device_recalls or search_device_510k. No 'when not to use' or comparison with siblings is given.

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