cpsc_recall_match

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the screening nature, return format (candidates with links), and API cost. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, whether there are rate limits, or what happens when no matches are found. This is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 two sentences, highly efficient. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and inputs, while the second adds essential caveats and cost. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 matching tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, inputs, output summary, and cost. It does not define the structure of 'evidence-backed candidates' or error handling, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect. The lack of an output schema makes the return description slightly general, but still adequate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by stating that a match can be performed using 'brand, model, or UPC plus the product title', clarifying that product_name is required and that the others are alternatives. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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's function: 'Match one product against U.S. CPSC recalls and Product Safety Warnings.' It specifies the inputs (brand, model, UPC, product title) and the output (evidence-backed candidates with official notice links). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (email_check, iban_check, vat_check, domain_check), which address entirely different domains.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to screen a product against CPSC recalls. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly for other verification tasks, so the context is clear. The caveat 'A result is a screening candidate, not a safety or compliance decision' provides guidance on how to interpret results, earning it a 4.

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