check_recall

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: returns recall_flag, Class I info, records with classification/reason/date/status/source_url, and highlights data limitation (no barcode, text match). 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?

Description is concise and well-structured: main purpose first, then details, caveats, and alternative. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: scope, query parameters, return fields, data quality, verification, and alternative tool. No gaps given lack of annotations or output schema.

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 parameters documented. Description adds context: brand is primary, product_name is optional, and provides example values. This exceeds schema but is not fully novel.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks for FDA/consumer recalls on consumer products (supplements, food, cosmetics) and explicitly excludes medical devices, distinguishing it from sibling tools. The verb 'check' and resource 'recall on file' are specific.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: query by brand primary, optionally by product_name, and directs users to an alternative tool (radar MCP) for medical device recalls. Also advises confirming matches via source_url due to text matching.

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