Recent recalls

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context such as 'newest first' and 'up to 90' days, but does not go much beyond that. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 entire description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence that conveys scope, source, time range, ordering, and optional filtering without any filler or redundant wording.

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 read-only listing tool with two optional parameters and an output schema present, the description provides the essential operational details: data sources, time window, filtering, and order. Minor gaps like an explicit all-agencies default are not material given the schema covers the default.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 50%, the description compensates by clarifying that 'days' is a lookback window capped at 90 and that 'agency' is an optional single-agency filter. The enum values are self-explanatory, so the added meaning is adequate for both parameters.

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 clearly names a specific resource ('newest US recalls from CPSC and FDA') and the operation scope, with a time window and optional agency filter. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools check_recalls or vehicle_recalls, so it falls short of a 5.

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: to retrieve recent recalls within a certain number of days, optionally filtered by agency. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over check_recalls or vehicle_recalls, nor any exclusion criteria.

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