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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses the result ordering (newest first) and a credit cost of 1, which are useful operational traits. It doesn't state rate limits, whether queries are optional (empty query = all recalls?), or result volume behavior, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with cost appended in parentheses. No wasted words and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, missing details on optionality of query, pagination/limit behavior, and result shape leave gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema (query as string, limit as number 1-50). The description adds meaning by implying that query matches product, brand, or hazard text, which is not in the schema, but doesn't clarify whether query is optional or what an empty query returns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 clear verb (search) and resource (UK product safety alerts and recalls), plus the searchable dimensions (product, brand, hazard) and ordering (newest first). This distinguishes it from food_alerts and other sibling lookup tools without needing schema inspection.

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?

Usage is implied by the description ('search UK product safety alerts and recalls'), which gives enough context to know it's for recall lookups, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. food_alerts for food-specific incidents). The cost note hints at a paid call but doesn't say when to avoid it.

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