fda_food_recalls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context about recall classes and query examples but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as result format or pagination. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short classification legend, and three illustrative example searches. Every line earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool with two parameters and no required fields, the description plus schema and annotations provide enough to call it correctly. It does not explain return fields, but the absence is minor because the tool is a simple search endpoint and the schema covers query construction.

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 schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by showing concrete field names and query patterns like 'classification:"Class I"', 'recalling_firm:tyson', and 'reason_for_recall:listeria', which help an agent construct effective searches.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search FDA food recall enforcement reports.' The word 'food' clearly separates it from sibling tools like fda_drug_recalls and fda_device_recalls, and the classification explanations reinforce the domain.

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 what the tool searches and gives realistic example queries for common use cases such as severity, firm, and reason. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough that an agent can route correctly.

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