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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it well. It discloses the data source (46,506 official alerts since 2005), the search keys, and the three possible verdicts ('recalled', 'possible_match', 'clear'). It also provides the critical caveat that a 'clear' verdict is not a safety certification. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond any structured fields.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides operational detail (database size, search fields, output), and the third clarifies an important limitation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple search tool, the description is complete: it specifies input criteria, output verdicts, and a caveat about interpretation. It does not explain how parameters combine or how to handle ambiguous matches, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature, this is largely adequate.

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%, with each parameter already described in the schema (e.g., gtin's reliability, brand's German variant handling). The description adds only a restatement that searches are by 'GTIN/EAN barcode, brand and/or product name', which adds minimal value over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Check whether a product has been recalled in the EU.' It specifies the resource (EU Safety Gate/RAPEX alerts), the verb (check), and the scope (searches 46,506 alerts since 2005 by GTIN, brand, product). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_brand_recall_history (brand history) and list_recent_recalls (recent alerts).

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 intended usage is clear from the first sentence: to determine if a product is recalled. The description also mentions the search criteria (GTIN/EAN, brand, product name), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when not to use them, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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