mosaic_regulatory_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that data is 'live from openFDA', implying an external dependency, but does not elaborate on potential rate limits, outages, or behavior changes. This context is useful but not extensive.

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: one for purpose, one listing returns, and a final sentence about the data source. It is front-loaded and concise, with no unnecessary words.

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 has a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description sufficiently covers purpose, return values, and live nature. It does not need to explain output format since an output schema exists.

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?

Despite schema description coverage being 0% (the main description adds no parameter details), the schema itself includes a description for 'drug_name'. The description does not enhance understanding of the parameter beyond the schema, and given low coverage, it should compensate but does not.

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 queries 'openFDA for a drug's approval status, label indications, and adverse events', specifying the data source and purpose. It lists specific return fields (approval dates, brand/generic names, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mosaic_clinical_pipeline or mosaic_compare_drugs.

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 mentions 'Data is live from openFDA — does not require local ingestion', hinting at its online nature. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for clinical trial results use mosaic_clinical_pipeline) or provide any exclusion criteria.

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