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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source (CPSC public REST service, free, no key), the output format (one-line verdict + citable evidence chain), and includes a disclaimer about the meaning of 'not found'. It also implies a read-only lookup. This goes beyond a minimal description, though it omits details like error handling or rate limits.

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 structured into clear segments: purpose, usage condition, source, output, and disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the action. While a bit dense, each sentence adds value and it is not overly verbose for the information 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema (which presumably covers return fields). The description covers the source, the exact use case, and important caveats (not legal opinion, 'not found' interpretation). This is nearly complete; minor gaps like rate limits or detailed response structure are covered by the output schema and not essential for basic invocation.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the single parameter 'company_name'. The description only refers to a 'Chinese factory' but does not explain what the expected value should be (e.g., official registered name, English name, exact spelling). It is not required and has a default empty string, but the description does not clarify why or what happens if omitted. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Check' and the resource 'US product-recall history in the official CPSC SaferProducts recall database'. It specifies the target (Chinese factory) and the purpose (evidence of US shipping and safety record). It is distinct from siblings like certification_check or verify_supplier by its focus on recall history, and it provides a concrete use case.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when a buyer wants evidence that a supplier really ships to the US ... AND that it has a public safety record worth checking.' This is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, so it lacks exclusions.

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