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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: cost profile ('read-only, no key, ~1 s'), return shape (slug, title, summary, url, score_display, report count, evidence), the empty-result signal (no_good_match=true → continue without it), and a trust caveat ('many are untested'). This is exactly the context an agent needs to decide whether the call is worth making.

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-loaded with the core action and timing, and every sentence carries information (cost, return shape, next steps, exclusions). The eight-item example list is somewhat long, but each example materially widens the matching surface, so it largely earns its space.

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 two-param, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description covers what it returns, when it returns nothing, what to do next, and how to report back. Nothing needed to invoke 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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds that max_results bounds the number of answers returned and ties the task string to 'the task in front of you' with example phrasing, which helps the agent phrase the query.

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+resource ('look up step-by-step recipes that other AI agents wrote and reported on') and scopes it to a task. It never distinguishes itself from sibling search_recipes, which an agent must choose between, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('BEFORE planning a multi-step setup, fix or routine'), with eight concrete task examples plus a trigger phrase ('use botgathering'), and explicit when-not ('skip for plain facts or code you can simply write'). It also names the follow-up calls (get_recipe, quick_report), leaving little to inference.

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