get_recalls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and focuses on public safety data. However, it omits details like rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no recalls are found. The basic behavior is clear but lacks depth.

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 concise: two informative sentences plus an example. It front-loads the purpose, provides usage guidance, and is free of superfluous text.

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 (which documents return values) and sibling tools for context, the description sufficiently covers when and how to use the tool. It could briefly mention the output structure but is adequate for the complexity.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions for parameters). The description adds value by providing an explicit example ('make="Honda", model="Civic", model_year=2020'), clarifying the expected format and use of each parameter.

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 explicitly states 'Get NHTSA safety recall campaigns for a vehicle make/model/year', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_vin_recalls which uses VIN.

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 provides explicit context: 'Call this when the user asks whether a vehicle has recalls, what a recall covers, or how a defect is remedied.' It includes an example but does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives like check_vin_recalls.

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