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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns active recalls, filters automatically based on establishment type, and uses get_rappels_produits_actifs internally. The examples of product families add transparency about the filtering logic, though details like response format or data freshness are not mentioned.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and includes useful examples, but it is somewhat verbose due to full French/English duplication. The final line about the required parameter is redundant with the schema, adding minor bloat.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and typical use case. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it, though it omits details like pagination or exact response fields.

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 coverage is 100% for the single required parameter, and the schema already lists valid values. The description adds semantic meaning by giving concrete examples of which product families each establishment type receives (e.g., bakery vs. fishmonger), helping the agent understand the filtering behavior beyond the schema.

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 returns active RappelConso recalls filtered by establishment type, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_rappels_produits_actifs by explicitly mentioning it filters results and even names the internal tool used.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., morning automated checks) and contrasts it with manually searching all categories. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the establishment-specific filtering context is evident.

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