openemr_fda_adverse_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Query' (implying read-only) but does not mention rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or whether results are limited to top reactions. The description lacks depth for safety-critical adverse event data.

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 concise and to the point, using a single clear sentence. No redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (simple query with two parameters) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., structure of top reactions), pagination, or error handling. A more complete description would include typical fields or behavior.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-defined. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; 'drug_name' and 'limit' are adequately explained in schema properties. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Query' and the specific resource 'FDA FAERS database for adverse event reports on a drug.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like openemr_fda_drug_label and openemr_drug_safety_flag_* by focusing on 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with siblings such as openemr_fda_drug_label. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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