device_postmarket_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it returns 'descriptive observables with sources — never a safety judgment,' clarifying its non-judgmental nature. It lists all included data types, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists all key points without any wasted words. Every clause 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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (recalls, MAUDE, warning letters, drift signals) and notes sources. It is complete for a lookup tool, though an example would enhance 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear pattern and description. The description adds 'by 510(k) number,' but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's specification.

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 it provides 'post-clearance intelligence' for a device by 510(k) number and lists specific data points (recalls, MAUDE, warning letters, drift signals). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'device_risk_lookup' by focusing on post-clearance data and from 'postmarket_search' by being per-device.

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 usage when you need post-clearance data for a specific device by 510(k) number. It clearly defines the context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings.

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