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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific matching context 'by product text' and the beta status, but no additional behavioral constraints such as rate limits, pagination, or result format. This is consistent with, and slightly extends, the annotation profile.

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 extremely compact, with only two short sentences. It front-loads the practical 'FREE beta' caveat and then states the core function without verbosity. The brevity is appropriate, though 'FREE beta' is arguably lower value than a usage note.

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 read-only search with three parameters, the description is minimally workable: it tells the agent what to search and the available categories. However, with no output schema and no description of result limits or the distinction from the 'evidence' sibling, an agent cannot fully anticipate what the tool returns or when to choose it.

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 0%, but the description partially compensates by indicating that 'query' matches product text and 'category' covers drug/device/food. However, the optional 'limit' parameter is not described, leaving its purpose and effect undocumented.

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 a specific action ('Search'), the target resource ('FDA drug, device or food recall enforcement reports'), and the search mechanism ('by product text'). It distinguishes the tool from obvious non-FDA siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the fda_recall_search_evidence sibling beyond the tool name.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this 'basic' version versus the 'evidence' sibling or any other alternative. It only notes that it is a 'FREE beta,' which is not a usage instruction. An agent is left to infer when this tool is preferred.

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