complaint-recall-riskLists complaint and recall risk records for the authenticated workspace without exposing private operational notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum records to return. | |
| query | No | Job title, customer name, or technician name. | |
| status | No | Risk state; defaults to open. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly avoids restating them. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by clarifying workspace scoping and the privacy boundary that private operational notes are not exposed. There is no contradiction with the 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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then adds one important qualifier. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or duplication of schema details.
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 list tool with no required parameters, no nested objects, and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, and privacy limitation. It does not describe output shape or pagination behavior, but annotations and schema provide enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, query, and status are already fully documented with defaults, enum values, and descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the high schema coverage means the baseline score 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 a specific verb and resource — 'Lists complaint and recall risk records' — and scopes it to the authenticated workspace. It does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools, but the resource is specific enough to avoid obvious confusion with the broader search and report siblings.
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 retrieving complaint and recall risk records for the current workspace. It does not provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives such as routing-driving-risk, so usage context is only implied.
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.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.