search_consumer_protection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states it is free, requires no key, returns specific fields (title, agency, dates, URL, record_id), and that full records require purchase via get_record. It also notes the historical coverage since 2004. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but for a search tool this is reasonable.

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 front-loaded with the key value proposition ('FREE, no payment and no key'), then states purpose, data sources, return fields, alternative tool, and use cases. Every sentence adds useful information and the structure is logical and efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple data sources, historical data, different access levels), the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, returns, costs, and when to use. It lacks details on result limit/sorting, but these are not critical for the stated use cases.

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 has a single 'query' property with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by defining 'query' as 'keyword(s) to search.' This is sufficient for the simple parameter, though it does not elaborate on query syntax or constraints.

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 what the tool does: 'Answers has this product, drug, device or vehicle been recalled, and what have consumers complained about' and specifies the exact data sources (CFPB, NHTSA, CPSC, FDA). It distinguishes from siblings like search_gov_spending by focusing on consumer protection and recalls.

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?

It provides explicit context for when to use the tool ('For product safety review, supplier screening, and recall monitoring') and names an alternative (get_record for full records). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

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