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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it defines the four possible outcomes, explains that RECALLED requires an exact match, clarifies SOLD_RECALLED_PRODUCT for stores that sold recalled products, includes the list-read date for NOT_IN_INDEX, and explicitly warns that it never says a product is safe.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then input modes, then output semantics and scope. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 complexity, four optional parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough to use correctly. The possible outputs are enumerated, the exact-match rule is clear, and the California-only scope and safety caveat are stated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description still adds value by describing the accepted invocation combinations, especially that a batch number should be supplied with its maker, and by connecting inputs to exact-match recall semantics.

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: checking a cannabis package or license against California's cannabis recall list. It also scopes the tool to California only and distinguishes its recall-specific purpose from general license lookup tools, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly explains the accepted input modes: package UID, batch number with maker, or license number. The California-only constraint is explicit, but it does not name sibling tools or explicitly say when to use this instead of lookup_license or licensed_near.

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