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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results are dated and include source pages, which is useful context, but it does not describe pagination, result limits, or how filter defaults behave. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key content and packs all relevant filtering and output details without redundancy. Every phrase 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, and annotations cover safety. However, parameter semantics remain partially ambiguous (e.g., exact query interpretation, date format, behavior when fields are null), and with zero schema parameter documentation, a bit more detail would make the tool safer to invoke.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mentioning 'market' (matching the market parameter), 'since a date' (matching since), and 'ingredient, brand' (implying the query parameter). This provides some meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify date formats or query syntax.

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 (enforcement events: recalls, bans, safety alerts) and the filtering dimensions (market, ingredient, brand, since date), and explicitly mentions the output includes source pages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_safety_label or get_market_status, which cover safety labels and market status respectively.

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 description implies usage when enforcement events are needed, listing the available filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no direct comparison to siblings, so the agent must infer applicability from the resource type.

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