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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses important behaviors: results are newest-first, calls are priced per row, payment can be sent via bearer token or x402, and the source notice is authoritative. It also adds a safety directive to confirm details at the linked source before acting.

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, then payment and authoritative-source caveats. It is reasonably tight, though the authoritative-source point is repeated in three consecutive sentences.

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 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly: agencies, search axes, ordering, payment, and authoritative-source guidance are all present. It does not describe the full response shape, but that is a smaller gap given the rich filter documentation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 82%, so the structured schema already documents most parameters. The description adds only light semantic value by summarizing filter axes, though it does clarify that source_url is authoritative and that limit affects pricing.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search FDA, USDA FSIS, and CPSC recalls'), lists concrete filters, and is clearly distinct from siblings like get_recall or list_agencies. It is unambiguous about what kind of lookup this is.

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?

It conveys a clear use case: searching across multiple consumer product/food recall sources with rich filtering. It does not explicitly say 'use get_recall for a single known recall', but the search-focused wording is enough to route agent selection away from the siblings.

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