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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that an unfiltered call returns newest-first, which the schema's 'query' parameter already states. No additional context on result size, pagination practice, or what a match looks like.

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?

Two sentences, with the selection trigger front-loaded and the capability summary second. There is no filler and nothing redundant enough to remove.

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?

For a read-only six-parameter search with full schema coverage, rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers selection and scope adequately. A brief note on pagination flow (using nextOffset to continue) or pointing to get_recipe for full recipe bodies would make it complete.

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 every parameter including limit, offset and maxPrepMinutes is already documented at the field level. The description restates the filterable dimensions but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 — searching the user's own Recipe One library — and enumerates the searchable dimensions (words, tag, cookbook, time). The phrase 'their own saved recipes' cleanly separates it from import_recipe_from_url and get_recipe, so an agent can identify it without opening a schema.

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 opening clause gives explicit when-to-use triggers with three concrete user intents (what they have, ideas from the library, a recipe by name or ingredient). It stops short of naming follow-up alternatives such as get_recipe for full detail or add_recipe_to_cookbook, but the context is clear enough to select this tool.

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