openfda_recall_getter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'complete recall details' with a bulleted list of data types, which adds useful context about output behavior. However, it does not mention authentication needs (e.g., API key usage), rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of return details. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy or waste.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It provides a high-level overview of returned data, which is sufficient. However, for a tool with no annotations and two parameters, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., authentication or error handling) to be fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('recall_number' and 'api_key') with descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose with specific verb+resource: 'Get detailed FDA drug recall information for a specific recall.' It distinguishes from its sibling 'openfda_recall_searcher' by focusing on retrieving details for a specific recall rather than searching.

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 usage context by specifying 'for a specific recall,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'openfda_recall_searcher' or other FDA-related tools. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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