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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost ($0.001 per call via x402 on Base) and response provenance/attestation, which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it omits read-only confirmation, error handling, rate limits, and id validation details, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, followed by pricing and integrity details. Every sentence earns its place and there is no waste.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description lists return fields and covers payment and attestation, making it largely complete. It still lacks guidance on how to source the recall number and when to prefer this over the monthly summary.

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 50%; the id parameter has no schema description, but the description supplies 'recall number' as its meaning. It also adds cost context for payment beyond the schema. It compensates for the coverage gap but does not specify id format or the free-quote option.

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 it retrieves a CPSC recall by recall number and lists the fields returned (hazard, remedy, units affected, recall date). 'By recall number' implicitly distinguishes it from the monthly summary sibling, but the lack of an explicit verb and a named alternative keeps it from the top score.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description does not help an agent decide between this tool and siblings like cpsc_recall_monthly_summary or other recall lookups.

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