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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavioral context: the search spans at most 15 calendar years since 2000, previews up to 20 rows, and exports the newest 2,000 results to XLSX and CSV. These are meaningful operational details beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. Usage guidance and domain scope are front-loaded, followed by key data-range and output behavior, then the exclusion. Each sentence 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?

The tool has an output schema, rich annotations, and full schema description coverage, so the description need not explain return values. It still adds the date-range limit and preview/export behavior, making the definition complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so the parameter definitions already carry most semantics. The description still adds a useful constraint not fully captured in the schema: date filtering touches at most 15 calendar years since 2000. It does not elaborate on match_in behavior or keyword matching nuances beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: searches live consumer-product recall data by keyword and dates. It clearly scopes the domain (consumer products) and excludes food, drugs, and vehicles, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools check_inventory_for_recalls or get_recall_details.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use language (product recalls, recall lists, consumer product recall search) and a clear when-not-to-use exclusion (food, drugs, vehicle recalls). It does not name specific alternative tools for those excluded cases, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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