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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds domain context about enforcement actions and recall classification, but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as data coverage, ordering, pagination, or exclusions.

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 compact and front-loaded with the resource identity, followed by a clear summary of filters and use cases. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 read-only tool with six fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the domain, filter options, and practical applications. It omits explicit sibling routing and return-format details, but the schema and annotations carry most of the operational burden.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description summarizes the main filter dimensions and explains the severity scale, but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource as FDA drug enforcement actions/recalls and enumerates concrete filter dimensions (product, classification, state, date range). The 'drug' scope distinguishes it from device and food recall siblings, even without naming them.

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 explicitly names use cases: pharmacy compliance, supply chain monitoring, and pharmacovigilance, which gives an agent clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus other FDA/recall tools.

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