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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only nature. The description adds useful behavioral details: active-only filtering by default and field omission behavior. No contradictions with annotations. Missing information about pagination or sorting, but the annotation lowers the bar, and the description adds value.

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 concise and well-structured, conveying key information in three short sentences. It avoids verbosity and includes essential usage distinctions.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (many parameters, no output schema, multiple sibling search tools), the description only provides partial context. It does not explain the response structure, pagination, or the meaning of most parameters, and only briefly references get_recall for full field details. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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 only 18% (only country and subdivision have descriptions). The description mentions active_only, category, and fields but does not explain many other parameters such as as_of, snapshot_id, updated_since, cursor, or limit. This is insufficient for an 11-parameter tool with few documented parameters.

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 clearly states that the tool searches Health Canada recalls and safety alerts by matching words in title, product, or hazard. It also distinguishes itself from recalls_get_recall, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 practical usage guidance, such as the default active-only behavior (unless active_only is false) and that category values should come from list_categories. It also clarifies when to prefer this tool over get_recall regarding the what_you_should_do field, though it does not explicitly enumerate all usage scenarios.

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