cpsc_recall_search

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about the date format (MM/DD/YYYY) and the requirement to use at least one filter, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, result limits, or output structure. This is consistent with the calibration example where a similar level of added context merits a 3.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes an example in just a few lines. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 search tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search criteria, date format, and usage example. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but the purpose is clear and the annotations provide safety context. Given the complexity, the description is nearly complete but could benefit from a note on what the response contains.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 10 parameters. The description adds a high-level summary of parameter categories and an example, but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus the baseline score of 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 searches CPSC consumer product recalls and lists specific searchable attributes (product name, manufacturer, hazard, date range, recall number). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cpsc_recall_detail (which likely retrieves a specific recall) and cpsc_penalty_search (which searches penalties).

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 clear context for use: it's a search tool with optional filters and requires at least one parameter. It includes an example demonstrating parameter combinations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like cpsc_recall_detail for when a specific recall number is known, though the distinction is implied.

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