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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds substantial behavioral context: the index methodology (openFDA 90-day recall count, FDA class severity weights), the exact return fields, the daily update cadence, and the Gold-tier requirement for optional history. This goes well beyond the structured 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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose and outputs, then providing usage context and an update frequency note. Every clause adds value, and the length is justified by the tool's richness.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates return fields (score, trend, confidence, top_drivers, class breakdown, top recall reason, recent Class I/II recalls), explains the optional history parameter's behavior and tier requirement, and identifies the alternative tool for drug recalls. It is complete for a tool with this 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?

The sole parameter 'days' is already fully described in the input schema, including the optional history behavior, range limits, and Gold-tier requirement. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies a precise resource: a 0-100 US medical-device recall-enforcement pressure index. It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming ADW-552 for drug recalls, 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 when-to-use guidance: 'Call when the user asks about medical-device recalls, FDA device enforcement, or device safety risk, or when timing supplier reviews, procurement holds, or med-tech exposure.' It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'For drug recalls use ADW-552.'

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