Search product recalls and safety alerts

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

Annotations already cover safety/idempotency, but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: the call runs the Apify Actor tacps126/recalls-radar on the user's own account, costs roughly $0.002 per recall with a $0.5 cap per call, and results are returned newest-first. Only latency/rate behavior and empty-result handling are left unstated, which keeps this short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and source coverage are front-loaded in the first sentence, with fields, ordering, and cost following in a tight sequence. It is somewhat dense — a long run-on list of publishers — but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise lack.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining essentials: source coverage, ordering, cost and spend cap, and the platform the call runs on. What is missing is guidance on broadening/narrowing queries or what happens when nothing matches.

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%, with keywords, countries, categories, max_items, posted_within_days and extra_input all documented in-schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden and a 3 is the baseline. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction details beyond restating the field list; even the 'merged over the defaults' note for extra_input is already in 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?

States a specific verb and resource (product recalls and safety alerts) and immediately enumerates the exact source regulators (FDA, CPSC, Health Canada/CFIA, UK FSA/OPSS, EU Safety Gate), which tells an agent precisely what corpus it queries. The enumerated result fields (product, brand, company, hazard, class, date, remedy, official link) further pin down scope, distinguishing it from nearby siblings like search_gov_updates and get_alerts.

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 supplies useful operating context — 'Newest first', the cost model, and the spend cap — but never states when to choose this over search_gov_updates or get_alerts, nor when it is not appropriate. Usage is implied by the source list rather than explicitly guided.

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