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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: paid per call, no charge on empty or stale results, capped at 10 rows, no consumer instructions or images, and a non-official-notice disclaimer. Annotations already cover safety (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description layers billing and result-limit behavior on top.

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?

Front-loads the paid-per-call warning and the core purpose, then packs limits and caveats into short clauses with no filler. Dense but each clause carries information; slightly sentence-heavy for a single paragraph.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return shape (up to 10 rows, data dates, FSIS address per notice) and what is excluded (consumer instructions, images). Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the cross-parameter constraint that at least one filter must be supplied — something the schema's zero-required-parameters shape does not convey. It also groups the filters by concept, aiding selection among the six.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: searching USDA FSIS published meat, poultry and egg recalls and public health alerts, with the filterable fields enumerated. The agency/jurisdiction scope distinguishes it cleanly from siblings search_us_fda_recalls and search_health_canada_recalls without needing to name them.

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?

Explicitly requires at least one filter ('give at least one'), which is real usage guidance an agent could otherwise get wrong. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over search_us_fda_recalls, though the USDA-vs-FDA framing makes the boundary inferable.

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