search_device_recalls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains classification severity but does not disclose pagination behavior, output format, sorting, rate limits, or data retrieval limits beyond the schema. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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 two focused sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists key searchable fields. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., recall reports, counts). It does not mention return structure, pagination, or result format. For a search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description only enumerates fields already described in the schema without adding new semantic detail (e.g., date format clarification or pagination behavior). It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 searches FDA medical device recall and enforcement reports, listing specific searchable fields (company, product, classification, status, date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_device_510k or search_drug_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?

The description implies usage by listing searchable fields but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusion criteria or sibling differentiation is mentioned.

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