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

The description says 'an empty result does not establish absence of recalls,' which is an open-world claim. The annotations declare openWorldHint=false, meaning closed-world semantics. This directly contradicts the annotation, so the score is 1.

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 dense and front-loaded with the purpose. Some redundancy exists ('Inputs: query' and 'Required: query') and the error sentence is slightly redundant with the schema, but overall it is efficient and well-organized.

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 explains the return envelope (source_class, provenance, snapshot, pagination, limits), explicitly describes no-match and error behavior, and relies on the rich parameter schema for invocation details. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including literal case-sensitive substring matching, limit/offset constraints, and snapshot semantics. The description adds little beyond redundant mentions of 'query' and 'Required', 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 action ('Find') on a clear resource ('recall notices and detail records') with search dimensions (product, manufacturer, title text). This distinguishes it from sibling get_recall_record, which implies single-record retrieval, without needing to inspect the schema.

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 context is clear: this tool is for text-based searching of recall notices by product, manufacturer, or title. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is evident and no misleading guidance is present.

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