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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: data source (openFDA Food Enforcement), update frequency (weekly), historical coverage (since 2012), and the Gold-tier requirement for history mode. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence packs the core mechanism and output fields, the second lists use cases. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured.

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 signal tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields, explaining the signal's construction, providing update frequency, and all relevant use cases. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% for the only parameter ('days'), which is fully documented in the schema. The main description adds no further meaning about parameters, 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 clearly states the tool returns a 0-100 food-recall safety signal with defined fields (safety_signal_score, class_I_90d) and specific computation details (scaled count of FDA Class-I recalls in trailing 90 days). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from the many sibling risk tools.

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 explicitly lists multiple use scenarios ('Call when the user asks about food recalls, accelerating recall enforcement, food safety, contamination or foodborne-outbreak risk, or when timing supplier holds, FSMA traceability lookups, or private-label category exposure reviews'), providing clear guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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