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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the data is a local copy, updated_at reflects refresh time rather than a recall date, coverage is incomplete, and results are capped at 10.

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?

Dense but every clause carries information, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the caveats. The semicolon-and-em-dash packing is slightly heavy but no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the result cap (10), the meaning of the updated_at output field, coverage limitations, and a disclaimer. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the single query parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Product name, brand, model number or UPC'). The description adds no further input semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Search local U.S. CPSC data for up to 10 recall notices') with clear scope (local, U.S., capped at 10). It is unambiguously distinguishable from the calculator/utility siblings, none of which are recall lookups.

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?

Implicitly tells the agent this is for checking product recall notices and adds caveats ('check the notice', 'May not cover every batch or country'), but it never states when to use it versus alternatives or what queries are well-suited. Adequate but with clear gaps in explicit usage guidance.

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