check_recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are raw document data without interpretation, and mentions the Pro tariff, but does not specify auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description is short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key information. Could potentially be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. The two parameters are well-covered in the schema, and the description hints at usage. The tool's niche is clear relative to siblings. Lacks details on error handling or empty results, but complete enough for a simple lookup.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds that either name or series should be provided, slightly clarifying usage, but does not explain semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks letters from Roszdravnadzor about drug recalls, specifying the information returned (availability, date, details, reason) and that it does not interpret the data. It distinguishes from siblings like check_drug_registration which deals with registration, not recalls.

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 advises to provide 'name or series', implying at least one parameter should be used, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., Pro tariff). The context is implied but not explicit.

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