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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's job is to add operational context — and it does: newest-first ordering, the every-word-must-appear matching rule, the set of fields keywords are matched against, and the exact return fields. It omits rate limits and any pagination caveat beyond what the schema states.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then matching semantics, date scoping, return shape, and finally the exclusion boundary — a logical order with no filler. The long product enumeration is slightly padded but earns its place by scoping the corpus.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (recall number, date, title, products, units, hazard, remedy, cpsc.gov link). Six optional parameters are all covered by the schema, and the domain boundary is stated, leaving nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it explains that `query` accepts a recall number or UPC as well as words, that all words must match, and that `query` may be omitted when a date range is given. It does not clarify the interaction between `detail: full` and the result cap, which lives only in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ("Searches") and a precise resource (CPSC consumer product recalls), then enumerates the covered product classes and explicitly excludes vehicles, food, drugs, cosmetics and medical devices, which is exactly what separates it from the sibling recall tools. An agent can pick this over food_drug_device_recalls or vehicle_recalls without opening any 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?

The exclusion sentence effectively routes the agent away from the food/drug/device and vehicle siblings, and the note that a query is optional when a date range is supplied clarifies the two calling modes. It stops short of naming the alternative tools explicitly, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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