Check vehicle recalls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what the tool returns: 'every active recall campaign with summary, consequence, free dealer remedy, and severity flags (do-not-drive, park-outside, OTA update).' This is meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or what happens when neither a VIN nor year/make/model is supplied (since required parameters are zero).

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return value and a usage cue. No filler.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough: it names the data source (NHTSA), the two lookup paths, and the returned fields. Missing are edge-case guidance (e.g., behavior when no parameters are supplied) and any note on freshness or scope of 'open' recalls, but nothing critical to invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the VIN-vs-year/make/model preference and length constraints. The description introduces the OR relationship but adds no formatting or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 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 a specific verb and resource ('Look up open NHTSA safety recalls for a vehicle') and distinguishes itself from siblings like decode_vin and validate_vin_check_digit by name and domain. The dual lookup path (VIN or year/make/model) is explicit.

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?

Provides a clear context cue: 'Use this when the user is researching a specific car for safety issues.' That said, it doesn't explicitly exclude siblings like decode_vin or state what to do first when a VIN is available vs. when it isn't (the schema covers that, but the description doesn't route the user).

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