Get a recall by id, including extracted lots, UPCs, model numbers, locations, and contact info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | alias for recall_id | |
| recall_id | No | recall id returned by search tools |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| extracted | No | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| publishedOn | Yes | ||
| descriptionTruncated | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about what the response contains (extracted lots, UPCs, model numbers, locations, contact info) but does not reveal behaviors beyond that, such as error handling or open-world caveats.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get a recall by id') and then lists the relevant inclusion content. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are already specified, and the description adds the key data categories included. The only gap is that both parameters are marked optional while the tool logically requires an id, but the description and schema together make the intended usage clear enough.
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 both parameters (id and recall_id) are already documented, including the alias relationship. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating that the tool fetches by id, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('a recall by id'), and lists the included data fields (lots, UPCs, model numbers, locations, contact info). This distinguishes it from the many search siblings that find recalls by query, UPC, image, or identifier, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.
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 schema description for recall_id says it is 'returned by search tools,' which implies this tool is used after a search to fetch full recall details. However, the main description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_product_recalls or other search siblings, leaving the when-to-use guidance implicit.
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 have clearly distinct roles, and the descriptions explicitly separate product lookup from recall search. However, the multiple recall search entry points (by query, UPC, image, and identifier) overlap enough that an agent could pick the wrong one without carefully reading the details.
Tool names consistently follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as add_, list_, remove_, search_, get_, create_, revoke_, and mark_. The single-word signup is the only minor deviation, but it does not undermine the overall naming system.
At 19 tools, the set is in the borderline-heavy range. The count is justified by the multiple subdomains like API key management, inventory, watch patterns, notifications, and recall searching, but it still feels slightly above the ideal well-scoped tool surface.
Core recall search, product lookup, inventory tracking, watch pattern management, notifications, and API key lifecycle are all covered well. Minor gaps exist such as no way to update a watch pattern or view account usage limits, but agents can generally work around them.