search_fda_drug_patent_expiry

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions sorting and default inclusion of exclusivity data, but does not disclose pagination behavior (skip/limit), what happens if both drugName and applNo are provided, or that it is a read operation. These gaps limit transparency.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then usage details. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description only vaguely says 'returns patents... with associated exclusivity data'. Lacks details on return fields or structure. Given complexity (unified view, optional parameter), more specifics on output would improve completeness.

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% (all parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. Description mentions drugName, applNo, and includePurpleBook but not skip, limit, or includeExclusivity. It adds minimal extra meaning beyond what schema already 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?

Description clearly states unified patent expiry and exclusivity view across Orange Book and optionally Purple Book, distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover only one book. It specifies search by drug name or application number, and mentions sorting by earliest expiry.

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?

Description provides explicit guidance on when to use the optional parameter includePurpleBook. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for single-book queries) or mention alternative sibling tools.

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