nhtsa_recall_detail

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description adds value by specifying the return content: 'full recall information including affected vehicles, summary, consequence, and remedy.' It also provides campaign number format guidance. No mention of error handling or invalid inputs, but the annotations already cover the safety profile, so the added behavioral context is sufficient.

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 three short sentences, each contributing essential info: what the tool does, the parameter format, and what the response includes. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter detail lookup with no output schema. The description adequately compensates by listing the main return fields (affected vehicles, summary, consequence, remedy). It is complete for the tool's complexity and gives the agent enough information to understand what to expect without an output schema.

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% and the schema description already provides the campaign number format and examples. The description repeats similar examples ('23V838000', '12V176000'), so it does not add meaningful additional semantic meaning 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 retrieves recall details by NHTSA campaign number, using the specific verb 'get' and identifying the resource. The campaign number format examples ('23V838000', '12V176000') further clarify the scope, distinguishing it from other NHTSA tools like nhtsa_recalls or nhtsa_safety_rating_detail.

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 makes it evident that this tool is for looking up a specific recall given a campaign number, with format examples. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like nhtsa_recalls for searching, so exclusions are not stated. The context is clear but not fully explicit about when not to use it.

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