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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals the calculation window (trailing-90d vs prior 90d), weighting (injury/death-weighted), output components (score, trend, top_drivers, etc.), and update frequency (daily). This is rich behavioral context that informs the agent about what the call returns and how often it refreshes.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the core return value and methodology, followed by use cases and differentiation. Every sentence adds critical information without padding or redundancy.

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 compensates by listing the return fields (score, trend, hazard-type top_drivers, recent recalls, confidence, methodology_version). It also covers usage timing, the distinction from other recall types, and update cadence, making it 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 coverage is 100% for the single optional 'days' parameter, and the schema description explains its behavior fully. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, so it stays at the baseline of 3 without compensating beyond the schema.

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 US consumer-product recall pressure index, specifies the verb 'Returns' and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from drug/food/device recalls. It also names the output fields, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit call scenarios: 'user asks about product recalls, CPSC activity, or consumer-product safety hazards' and timing decisions. Also gives a clear exclusion: 'Distinct from drug/food/device recalls.' This tells the agent when to use it and when not to.

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