APIbase

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these by specifying the data content (specific label fields) and source system (OpenFDA). It does not contradict annotations, though it could mention pagination behavior or rate limiting typical of OpenFDA APIs.

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 delivering the core action immediately ('Search drug labeling data'), followed by a dash-separated list of specific data fields, and ending with a parenthetical source attribution. Zero waste; every clause earns its place.

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 three-parameter search tool with good annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and data domain. It lacks an output schema (noted in context signals), but the enumeration of retrievable fields (indications, dosage, etc.) compensates partially by clarifying what results contain.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema itself documents all parameters comprehensively (including search syntax examples and limit constraints). The description mentions 'OpenFDA' which reinforces the search parameter context, but adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 provides a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('drug labeling data'), then enumerates exact content types available: 'indications, dosage, warnings, interactions, contraindications.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like health.safety.drug_events (adverse events) and health.clinical.search (trials) by specifying 'labeling data' as the target resource.

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 through specific content enumeration (use when you need dosage/warning info), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives. Given the presence of sibling health.safety.drug_events, explicit differentiation between 'labels' and 'adverse events' would strengthen agent selection.

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