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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that only 'cited recall records from the store' are returned, that each result includes a source URL and match score, and that no-match cases return an empty list instead of fabricated guesses. It omits edge-case details like pagination or auth, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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 no filler: the first defines scope, the second describes return shape, and the third defines empty-result behavior. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes value.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it states what is searched, what results contain, and what happens on no match. The only minor gaps are the semantics of market and limit, but those are optional parameters with defaults.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics to the required query parameter by defining acceptable inputs as product name, brand, model, or UPC. However, it does not explain the limit or market parameters beyond what their names and defaults imply.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('official CPSC recall records'), and enumerates supported search keys: product name, brand, model, or UPC. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like get_requirement, list_changes, and verify, which address different resources and actions.

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 context makes it clear this tool is for searching recall records, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternative tools, nor any stated exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than directly spelled out.

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