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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that prices are pre-computed in GBP and that the search filter is case-insensitive, which is modest but real behavioral context; the return payload is already described by the output schema, so that detail is largely duplicative.

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 resource and its contents front-loaded, then the workflow hint. The parenthetical enumerating venue types adds color but is the only slightly expendable phrase.

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 one optional parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, currency, filtering behavior, and the follow-up call. No meaningful gap remains.

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% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms 'search' filters by name and adds the case-insensitive behavior and examples of intended use, but adds no syntax or matching rules beyond that.

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 (list pre-costed UK starter recipes) and enriches it with scope details: pub/cafe/restaurant/takeaway coverage and GBP cost per portion. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling get_starter_menu, so the boundary between the two is left implicit.

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 a concrete downstream workflow ("Use the slug with get_recipe_prep_sheet"), which tells the agent where this tool fits in a chain, and notes the filter is optional. There is no explicit when-not guidance or contrast against get_starter_menu or build_prep_list.

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