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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the exact severity-weighting formula, the trailing 90-day comparison window, the list of returned data elements (trend, by_class, top_reason, 10 latest recalls), and the daily update cadence. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single dense sentence covering the returned data, followed by a clear usage trigger sentence and a brief update frequency note. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the first sentence is long and packed; no filler words. Every clause earns its place.

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 carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does so thoroughly, listing the score, trend, by_class counts, top_reason driver, and the 10 latest recalls. It also notes the update frequency. A minor gap is the lack of explicit return format structure, but the listed components are sufficient for agent planning.

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 covers the single optional 'days' parameter fully (100% coverage), including its purpose, range, and Gold tier requirement. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does imply a snapshot vs history distinction, but that is already in the schema description.

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 defines a specific verb ('Returns') and a well-specified resource: a 0-100 US drug recall enforcement intensity score with detailed weighting rules (Class I=3, II=2, III=1, trailing 90d vs prior 90d). It enumerates included components (trend, by_class counts, top_reason driver, latest recalls), which distinguishes it from the large sibling tool list.

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 states when to call it: 'Call when the user asks about FDA drug recalls, pharma safety enforcement, or manufacturing failure modes, or when timing supplier audits, formulary reviews, or pharma supply-chain risk decisions.' This gives clear context, though it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternative tools.

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