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

The description carries rich behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 0.01 USDC x402 payment per call, that a payment-less call returns 'payment required' and charges nothing, that an x402-capable client must attach the payment in _meta, and that content is operator-written, not generated. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false on what reads as a pure lookup, and the description never explains whether that flag reflects the billing side effect or an actual write; the payment disclosure is present, but this hint discrepancy is left unaddressed.

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?

The purpose and filters are front-loaded before the payment and legal caveats, and each block is short. There is some redundancy, such as restating 'language: de or en' after already stating the German/English choice, but the length is justified by the payment mechanics an agent must know before calling.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the return keys (dataset, dataset_updated_at, language, total_matches, truncated, recipes, index, categories, coverage), covers the payment prerequisite and failure mode, and sets expectations about content provenance. Nothing material for a correct call 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 the parameters are already documented, but the description adds real value: it explains the three filtering modes (category, free words, exact id), ties recipe_id to the ids listed in the response index, and clarifies that word matches run against title, description and ideas in the chosen language. The language parameter is merely restated from 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 ('Get ready-made video recipes') and enumerates exactly what each recipe contains: hook, shot list, interview questions, equipment, recording time, platforms, follow-up formats. This is unmistakable as a catalog lookup rather than a planning tool, though no sibling such as video_project_plan or shoot_day_plan is named as the alternative.

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?

It says how to narrow results (by category, words, or exact recipe id) and notes the response returns all recipe ids so the agent can follow up with recipe_id. What it does not say is when to reach for this tool instead of the related planning tools in the sibling list; usage is implied by the resource description rather than stated as a routing rule.

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