search_fda_purple_book

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns product details, licensing status, and reference product information, implying a read-only operation. No destructive behavior is mentioned, which is appropriate for a search tool.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function and return content. It omits details about pagination or output structure, but these are covered by the schema. Slightly more context on what the return data looks like 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%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes searchable fields but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It groups parameters (e.g., 'license type (351(a)/351(k))') but does not provide additional context for skip, limit, or applicant.

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 FDA Purple Book for licensed biological products, listing specific searchable fields (product name, applicant, BLA number, license type, biosimilar status, interchangeability). It distinguishes itself from siblings that search device or drug databases.

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 use for biologics, which differentiates it from drug and device sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, such as using Orange Book for small molecules.

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