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 genuinely new behavior: it returns short cards with ids and URLs rather than full recipes, which is critical since there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning the result cap or how matching ranks, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler. Scope comes first, the return shape second, and the routing instructions last, which is the right order for an agent scanning for a search entry point.

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 six optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden well by describing the returned card shape and id/URL handoff to get_recipe. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 the baseline is 3. The description earns extra by clarifying that query matches words in the dish name or keywords (broader than the schema's examples suggest) and that cuisine/category are exact-match values requiring a lookup via list_recipe_filters.

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 (search) and resource (Plate Artists recipe catalog), then enumerates the filter dimensions: dish name/keywords, cuisine, category, vegetarian, total time. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_recipe and list_recipe_filters, so an agent can route 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?

Gives explicit next-step routing: call get_recipe for the full recipe, and call list_recipe_filters for the exact cuisine and category values. This is a rare case of naming both the downstream tool and the prerequisite lookup tool, which fully covers the when-to-use question.

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