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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: it discloses the fallback parsing model (query text is parsed for protein, time, dietary and dinner intent when filters are absent), that dinner-intent searches exclude sides/dips/starters, and that no account is required. It also clarifies a non-obvious side-effect boundary — searches don't mutate a menu draft.

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?

Front-loads purpose and return shape, then layers use cases, filter semantics, and behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries content, though five dense sentences is slightly more than this three-parameter tool strictly needs.

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 a nested filters object, an output schema, and a large sibling set, the description covers what the tool does, when to reach for it, how structured filters interact with free-text query, and the read-only/no-account posture. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates for the highest-risk ambiguity by explaining that filters are hard constraints while query is a soft fallback, and gives a worked mapping ("quick chicken dinners" → filters.protein ['chicken'], filters.maxTimeMins 30). cuisine and limit remain undescribed in both schema and description, so it isn't exhaustive.

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 ("Searches Chop It's catalogue of 1,000+ tested recipes") plus exactly what comes back (recipe cards with title, photo, time, tags, protein). The catalogue scope plus the closing note that results don't touch a menu draft implicitly separates it from saved-recipe and menu tools in the sibling list.

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?

Gives concrete triggering intents: "dinner ideas, a named dish, protein, cuisine or dietary need, or ideas built around ingredients the user mentions." It never names an alternative sibling (e.g. list_saved_recipes, get_recipe) or states when not to use this tool, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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