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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: it performs no new inference or aggregation, coverage is limited to the available snapshot, returns an empty data array on no match, and produces an argument error on invalid input. These go beyond the annotations and fully disclose behavior.

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 compact paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then covers return format, safety, and error conditions. It is not overly verbose, but the line 'Inputs: record_id' is somewhat redundant given the schema and the later mention of required. Still, it is well-structured and readable.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return payload (paginated structured records with specific fields), pagination behavior, snapshot handling, and error cases. It covers all essential aspects an agent needs to call the tool correctly, making it complete for a retrieval tool.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description only repeats that record_id is required, adding no new meaning to limit, offset, or snapshot beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline but adds little value.

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 states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'recall notice or detail record' using an existing search-result identifier. It distinguishes itself from search tools by emphasizing it operates on an existing identifier, and clarifies it returns recorded facts without inference or aggregation, making it unambiguous.

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 states the tool retrieves using an existing search-result identifier, which implies prior use of a search tool like search_recalls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate usage scenario.

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