nhtsa_recall_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the return content (affected vehicles, summary, consequence, remedy), which is useful behavioral context. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then examples and return contents. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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 simple detail-lookup tool with a single parameter, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient guidance. It explains what the tool does, the input format, and what it returns. An agent can correctly invoke it with just the campaign number. No missing critical information.

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 already provides a description for campaign_number with examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's examples ('23V838000', '12V176000') essentially repeat the schema's examples, adding little new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 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 action ('Get recall details') and the resource ('NHTSA campaign number'), and provides concrete examples of valid campaign number formats. This distinguishes it from the sibling nhtsa_recalls (which searches for recalls) and nhtsa_complaint_detail (which handles complaints).

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 use case: you need a specific campaign number to retrieve details. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over nhtsa_recalls or when not to use it. It would benefit from saying 'use this when you have a campaign number; to find one, use nhtsa_recalls'. The usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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