Check a product for recalls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns that 'No match is not proof of safety,' and notes each match has a confidence level, which is not in the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, scope, and output content; the second adds a critical caveat. Every word 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 description covers purpose, scope, output elements, and a caveat. It does not explicitly mention the 'since' filter or that vehicle recalls are excluded, but those are inferable from the schema and sibling tools. The presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be repeated. Overall it gives an agent enough to call it correctly for most cases.

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 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The description reinforces the meaning of 'query' (product, brand, model) and 'upc' (barcode) by listing search keys. It does not add to 'since' (filter by date) or 'sources' (agency enum), but those are reasonably self-explanatory from the schema (pattern and enum). The description adds enough value for the main search parameters to exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Searches'), a clear resource ('US recalls'), and the exact scope ('CPSC consumer products and FDA food, drugs and devices'). It also enumerates search keys (name, brand, model number, UPC) and output elements (confidence, hazard, remedy, date). This distinguishes it from sibling vehicle_recalls, which is not mentioned but clearly outside the stated agencies.

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 description implies when to use it (for CPSC/FDA recalls) and implicitly that vehicle_recalls would be for vehicles, but it never explicitly says 'use vehicle_recalls for vehicles' or 'use recent_recalls for recent lists.' It provides clear context (US, CPSC/FDA) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

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