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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the cross-referencing behavior and what the response includes (event classification, product codes, quantities), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences with the core purpose in the first sentence, filter details in the second, and return/related tools in the third. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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 search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, filters, return content, and related tools. It does not explicitly mention pagination, but the schema documents limit/offset. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly, with minor gaps around usage constraints.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's filter list ('company name (fuzzy match), recall number, product type, date range') mostly restates the schema, though it does add product type examples. It does not provide additional semantic clarification beyond what the schema already offers.

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 begins with the specific action 'Search iRES enforcement recalls' and immediately distinguishes from siblings by noting cross-references to openFDA enforcement data and naming related tools. This gives a clear verb+resource+scope that is distinct from similar tools like fda_search_enforcement.

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 provides related tools as alternatives (fda_search_enforcement, fda_recall_facility_trace) and lists filter dimensions that suggest use cases. However, it lacks explicit 'use when' or 'not when' guidance, leaving the user to infer the best context from the alternatives.

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