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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the payload ("every identifier and the agency source link"), which matters because there is no output 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and scope, with the example ids and return contents packed in as parenthetical detail. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly summarizes the returned record and its identifiers, and annotations cover the safety semantics. The only gap is failure behavior for an unknown or malformed id, which an agent would need to handle.

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 single id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It does so usefully by giving four concrete id formats across agencies, telling the agent exactly what string to pass rather than leaving the format to guesswork.

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 specific verb and resource ("Full record for one recall id") and scopes it to a single entity, which separates it from search_recalls. The agency-prefixed id examples (cpsc-, fda-, nhtsa-, fsis-) further distinguish it from the check_product/check_vehicle siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the single-id scope: an agent can infer this is the detail lookup you call once you already have a recall id. However, it never states the natural workflow (e.g., use search_recalls first to obtain an id) or any when-not-to-use condition, so guidance is only implied.

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