Search FDA food and drug recall enforcement actions by product or reason to find related recall records and safety details.
Search FDA food and drug recall enforcement actions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (default 5) | |
| query | Yes | Product or reason to search for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context such as result format, rate limits, query syntax, or what the search returns.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It is somewhat terse for a search tool, but appropriately concise.
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 read-only search with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, it omits result format and query behavior, and there is no output schema to compensate.
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%, with both query and limit documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (FDA food and drug recall enforcement actions). It is distinguishable from siblings like openfda_adverse_events and openfda_drug_search by domain, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool versus openfda_adverse_events or openfda_drug_search. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned; usage is only implied by the domain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.