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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: which jurisdictions are queried, the default ~2-year lookback, the per-region return shape, and the caveat that a similar-product recall is not a finding about the user's product.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb, resource and coverage, then parameter guidance, then the interpretive caveat. Minor redundancy in repeating the schema's own product examples ('plush toy', 'baby walker'), but nothing wasted.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema, this covers what an agent needs: scope, defaults, parameter intent, and how to read the results. The only gap is the absence of explicit routing versus the sibling watch_recalls tool, which shares its subject matter.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the semantics of 'product' (plain product type) and 'origin' (filter to one manufacturing country) without adding format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema says, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Find recalls of products like this one') and pins down scope precisely: three named regulators, typically a two-year window, and the returned fields per region. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling watch_recalls/stop_watching_recalls pair, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('see which hazards regulators find in this product type before testing') and a meaningful interpretation guard ('A recall of a similar product is not a finding about the user's product'). It never names the monitoring alternative (watch_recalls) or states when not to use this one-shot search, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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