device_risk_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists outputs and a limitation, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects, authentication, or rate limits. The negation about enforcement is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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: the first states the core action and example, the second enumerates outputs and a key limitation. Every sentence is information-dense and front-loaded, with no wasted 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input semantics, output list, and a limitation. It could be slightly more precise about data scope (e.g., single category) but overall is comprehensive enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 single parameter 'product_code' has 100% schema coverage, but the description adds semantic value by providing an example ('FRN = infusion pump') and noting it is three-letter, reinforcing the schema constraints beyond the schema's description field.

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's function: review FDA signals for a medical-device category via product code. It lists specific returns (recalls, MAUDE trend, etc.) and provides an example ('FRN = infusion pump'), making the purpose unambiguous and well-distinguished from sibling tools.

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 gives an implicit usage hint by requiring a product code and noting what the tool does not do ('does not predict enforcement against a firm'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like device_postmarket_lookup or firm_compliance_history, leaving the agent to infer from the output description.

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