search_drugs_at_fda

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool returns application details, products, and submission history, but does not describe pagination behavior (skip/limit), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no results. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.

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 two sentences (28 words), highly concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes specific search and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 6 parameters (none required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, search criteria, and return types. It does not detail default pagination but schema covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a search tool with well-documented parameters.

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 100% with all parameters described. The description adds context by listing searchable fields, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents each parameter.

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 searches the Drugs@FDA database for approved drug applications, and lists specific search criteria (sponsor, application number, brand name, marketing status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_device_* or search_drug_adverse_events by focusing on approved drug applications.

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 searching approved drug applications by various criteria, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for adverse events use search_drug_adverse_events). No 'when not to use' or prerequisite information is provided.

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