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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds which fields are matched (title, ingredients, tags), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about result ordering, matching semantics (substring vs fuzzy), or empty-result behavior.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the scope and searched fields in the opening clause. The duplicated Norwegian/English phrasing is redundant filler, keeping it from a 5.

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 full schema coverage, annotations for safety/scope, and no output schema, the essentials are present. Still missing is anything about what results look like, how many/ordering, or what happens when nothing matches – a gap for a search tool whose output shape is undocumented.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples and a default limit of 20. The description only hints at what the query string matches against, which is a small increment over the schema – baseline 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 ('Søk i ... oppskrifter') plus the fields searched (tittel, ingredienser, tagger) and the scope (brukerens egne). An agent can tell it apart from get_recipe and save_recipe by verb alone, though it never explicitly contrasts with list_recipes.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance. The closest thing is the scope 'brukerens egne', but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over list_recipes or get_recipe, and no alternatives are named.

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