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

Adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: results are normalized, deduped within and across sources, severity-rolled with FDA Class I or death-related as high, summarized by classification, and source failures are noted but not fatal. Annotations cover read-only/idempotent/open-world safety, and the description adds processing and resilience semantics.

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-loaded and mostly tight, with the source scope and input modes stated first. The phrase 'Premium cross-source synthesis' is a marketing claim that does not add actionable meaning, though the rest of the description 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 multi-source aggregation tool with no output schema, the description covers input modes, normalization, dedupe, severity roll-up, classification summary, and failure tolerance. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds only the and/or pattern for query versus full vehicle input, without further detail on since or domains. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (sweep) and resource (product-safety recalls) across named sources CPSC, openFDA, and NHTSA. It distinguishes itself from single-source siblings like cpsc_recall_search, fda_drug_recalls, and vehicle_recalls by being a one-call cross-source aggregate.

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?

Explains input modes: product/keyword/manufacturer query and/or full vehicle year+make+model. It positions itself as a one-call comprehensive sweep, implying use over individual source tools, but does not explicitly name when to prefer or avoid alternatives.

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