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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds PRO gating and inclusive date semantics, but omits read-only status, pagination/rate limits, and return behavior, leaving important gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core scope and with no wasted verbiage. The PRO marker and monitoring use case are compactly conveyed.

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 two-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description covers the core filter and a use case. However, with no annotations and incomplete schema descriptions, it should say more about date format, auth/pagination, and result scope.

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 50%; the description clarifies that 'since' means recalls updated on or after that date, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. It does not specify date format, and access_token semantics come only from the schema.

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 states the resource (recalls) and the temporal filter (updated on or after a date), making the scope clear and distinguishable from latest_recalls and recall_search. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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 phrase 'for daily monitoring jobs' gives a clear usage scenario, but there is no when-not guidance, prerequisite detail, or explicit comparison to latest_recalls/watchlist. The context is implied rather than fully specified.

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