cpsc_recall_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and description aligns by saying 'Get'. Description adds valuable context about the scope of returned data (products, remedies, images, contact info), going beyond the raw annotation. No contradictions, but doesn't discuss potential pagination/rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a concise list of returned content. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 1-param lookup with readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description fully covers prerequisite workflow, return contents, and purpose. Nothing meaningful is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully documents recall_id as 'Recall ID from search results' with 100% coverage. Description repeats this implicitly via 'Use cpsc_recall_search first to find RecallIDs', adding no new syntactic detail beyond what schema already provides, so 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'CPSC recall details by RecallID', clearly distinguishing from search sibling. It enumerates the rich content returned, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use cpsc_recall_search first to find RecallIDs', providing clear when-to-use guidance and pointing to the correct alternative for discovery. This perfectly situates the tool in the workflow.

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