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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest first, and the specific fields returned (hazard, remedy, injuries reported, where sold, company contact, official recall page). It does not mention pagination or result 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?

Three sentences, all earning their place: purpose and search facets first, return contents second, domain exclusions last. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, valid inputs, result ordering, returned fields and domain boundaries. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the response; absence of an output schema is compensated by the enumerated return fields.

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 single 'query' parameter is already documented with its 2-80 character bounds; the baseline would be 3. The description adds concrete query-value examples (crib, stroller, space heater, magnets, brand name) that clarify what kind of keyword string the schema's generic 'Product type, brand or hazard keyword' accepts.

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 (Search) and resource (US CPSC product recalls) with scope constraints: searchable by product, brand or hazard keyword, newest first. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_food_recalls, search_car_seat_recalls and get_vehicle_recalls because it names the exact domain it covers.

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 states when to use it ('Use for household, children's and consumer products') and when not to ('Not for vehicles, car seats, food or medicines'), effectively routing the agent to the correct sibling tools. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives pattern.

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