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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the data source (openFDA, public domain) and temporal coverage, which is useful. However, it omits behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only (presumably yes). It also lacks details on pagination or error handling.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and efficiently cover scope and source. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable overview of purpose and data source. However, it lacks information about return format, pagination, and the mismatch between 'date range' and the actual 'year' parameter. The sibling 'food_recall_check' suggests a more targeted tool, but no comparisons are made.

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 input schema covers 4 of 5 parameters with descriptions (80% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds high-level context ('product, company, reason, or date range') but uses 'date range' loosely when only 'year' is a parameter. This slight mismatch does not add significant value beyond 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'search' and resource 'FDA food recalls', explicitly mentioning searchable dimensions (product, company, reason, date range) and coverage (2004-present). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'food_recall_check'.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 17 sibling tools, including 'food_recall_check', the absence of selection criteria or exclusion cases leaves the agent without clear decision support.

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