APIbase

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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds valuable context about OpenFDA data source and specific fields returned (side effects, reactions, demographics). Does not disclose rate limits, pagination limits beyond schema, or data freshness/latency—critical gaps for an external API search tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb. Em-dash efficiently appends content details without redundancy. No filler text; every clause earns its place by specifying database source, report types, or API provider.

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?

No output schema exists, but description compensates by enumerating returned data categories (side effects, reactions, demographics). Annotations comprehensively cover behavioral hints. Missing only rate limiting and error condition documentation for full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed examples for 'search' parameter syntax (e.g., 'patient.drug.medicinalproduct:aspirin') and clear descriptions for pagination controls. Description text doesn't add parameter semantics, but schema is fully self-documenting—baseline 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?

Excellent specificity: verb 'Search', resource 'FDA FAERS database', content scope 'drug adverse event reports — side effects, reactions, patient demographics', and data source 'OpenFDA'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling health.safety.drug_labels (labeling vs adverse events) and health.clinical.* (trials vs post-market surveillance).

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?

Provides clear context by specifying FAERS database and adverse event report contents, implicitly guiding selection when users need side effect data. However, lacks explicit comparison to sibling health.safety.drug_labels or guidance on when FAERS data is appropriate vs clinical trial data.

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