check_appliance_recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it queries the live CPSC database and returns only active recalls, which goes beyond the safety-only annotations. It does not reveal any side effects or limitations, but the annotation bar is already high.

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 zero filler. The first sentence leads with the action and object, the second gives the result and usage, all in a front-loaded, efficient structure.

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 the tool's purpose and use case, but it omits important operational guidance for a tool with zero required parameters. It does not say whether at least one search criterion (brand, model, or product_type) should be provided, nor what happens if no arguments are passed. Since there is no output schema, a note about result matching criteria would improve completeness.

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 each parameter (brand, model, product_type) having a description. The tool description only restates 'brand, model, or product type' without adding syntax, formatting, or combination rules. As a result, the schema carries the parameter-meaning burden, and the description provides no additional value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recall database for an appliance.' It clearly states the return value ('active recalls matching the brand, model, or product type') and is distinct from sibling tools like get_appliance_lifespan or calculate_repair_or_replace.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a user asks whether their appliance has been recalled, or when researching safety information for any home appliance.' This provides clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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