openemr-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Query' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to specify the return format (e.g., list of reactions with counts, raw FDA reports), error handling for unknown drugs, or data freshness. The limit parameter hints at 'top reactions' but the main description doesn't clarify what data structure is returned.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the essential action (Query) and target (FDA FAERS database) immediately clear.

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?

For a tool with only two flat parameters and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, it should ideally describe what constitutes an 'adverse event report' in the return value (e.g., reactions, severity, frequency) rather than leaving this entirely to parameter inference.

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%, with both drug_name and limit fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the structured schema, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and clearly identifies the resource ('FDA FAERS database') and scope ('adverse event reports on a drug'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like openemr_fda_drug_label (labels vs adverse events) and openemr_drug_interaction_check (interactions vs single-drug events), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus related drug tools like openemr_drug_interaction_check or openemr_fda_drug_label. There are no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow recommendations.

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