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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing that the operation is paid (price per call), returns raw agency payload and status history, and that the official source is authoritative. This is richer than the readOnlyHint and provides actionable behavioral context.

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?

Description is moderately long but each sentence adds value: payment, data sources, caution. It front-loads the core purpose and includes necessary operational details; only minor trim possible without losing substance.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers payment, return contents, and source authority. It omits potential error cases or rate limits, but these are less critical given the tool's specificity and read-only nature.

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 already describes the parameter as '32-hex recall id or page slug' (100% coverage). The description repeats this but adds the clarification that it can be either id or slug, which is slightly redundant. It doesn't add format details beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one recall') with clear selection criteria ('by id or slug'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_recalls (bulk/search) and list_agencies (list) by focusing on single-item retrieval with raw payload and history.

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 explicit payment requirements (Bearer token or x402) and a caution to confirm details at the source, indicating when to use it (single recall lookup). It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the single vs. search contrast is implied through the sibling tool names.

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