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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying the returned data fields (component, summary, safety consequence, remedy, campaign number, report date), which adds useful context about the tool's output.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. The all-caps emphasis on 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and 'RECALLS' is intentional but a bit noisy; every sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly more polished.

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 read-only tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to invoke it. It is fully self-contained and leaves no significant gaps for an agent to guess.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having its own description and examples. The description's 'Pass make + model + model_year' adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States clearly that it gets official NHTSA safety recalls for a vehicle, using the specific verb 'Get' and a well-defined resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_complaints or decode_vin by focusing solely on recalls.

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?

Explicitly says 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and gives concrete example queries, which tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not mention any sibling tool alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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