FREE: check a business name against CPSC product-recall records — the held-inventory / recoverable-recall liability line. Returns matched recalls with hazard + units.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Manufacturer/importer/retailer name (required). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is free, performs a read-only query (checking records), and returns specific data (hazard + units). It does not mention side effects or authorization needs, but the read-only nature is clear. The description adds value beyond the input schema.
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 sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and output without any fluff. Every word is informative, and the structure efficiently front-loads the key action ('check a business name') and result ('returns matched recalls').
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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, what it checks (CPSC records), and what it returns (hazard + units). The 'FREE' note adds real-world context. Nothing essential is missing.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'name', which is adequately described as 'Manufacturer/importer/retailer name (required)'. The description's mention of 'business name' adds little beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 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 checks a business name against CPSC recall records and specifies the output (matched recalls with hazard and units). The verb 'check' and resource 'CPSC product-recall records' are precise, and the 'FREE' indicator adds context. While sibling tool names are given, the description's specificity distinguishes it without needing explicit differentiation.
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 implies the tool is for checking recall exposure but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings like 'diligence_brief' or 'quick_scan'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools. The 'FREE:' note offers minor context but not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are distinct, but ch11_feed and ch11_preview both target Chapter 11 filings, with the difference being paid vs. free details. This could cause confusion if descriptions aren't read carefully.
Naming is inconsistent: two tools use 'ch11_' prefix, but the rest mix verb_noun (check_recall_exposure), noun (diligence_brief), and adjective_noun (quick_scan). No consistent pattern.
Five tools is well-scoped for a distress diligence server, covering bankruptcy filings, recalls, and a comprehensive brief without being excessive.
The tool set covers core distress signals (bankruptcy, recalls) and a composite brief. Minor gaps like a standalone lawsuit or WARN search exist but are partly addressed by the diligence_brief.