Recipes Daily

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true) already establish safety. The description adds materially by disclosing the matching heuristic (text-based matching, not identity — near-misses count, while synonym pairs like courgette/zucchini may fail) and the partial-match fallback behavior (returns closest partial matches rather than erroring). This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs to interpret results correctly. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences cover purpose, matching heuristic, and responsibility boundary without redundancy. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core function. However, the second sentence's caveat chain ('a near-miss on the name still counts, but...') is slightly convoluted to parse, though each clause earns its place.

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 read-only, idempotent ranking tool, the description comprehensively covers what the agent needs: ranking logic, matching semantics, partial-match behavior, and caller responsibility. The only minor gap is no description of the return format, but since there's no output schema and the tool is non-destructive, the cost of this gap is low. The description fully compensates for the lack of enum constraints or nested complexity.

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% — both `ingredients` (with example) and `limit` (with default and bounds) are well-documented in the schema itself. The description's matching semantics do enrich how one understands the `ingredients` param, but this is incidental rather than a direct param explanation. Since the schema carries the load, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('rank'), resource ('recipes at recipes-daily.com'), and ranking criterion ('by how many of them each one uses'). It goes beyond a generic statement by scoping the ranking behavior and how the tool communicates missing ingredients, which distinguishes it meaningfully from the sibling tool search_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?

The description gives clear context on when to use this tool (when you have a list of ingredients and want recipes ranked by coverage) and explicitly states what it is NOT ('not a substitution finder') and that the caller is responsible for substitution decisions. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling alternative, but the boundary is well-drawn.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered structurally; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return format (markdown), the instruction to answer from the text and cite its URL rather than rely on memory, and the exact-URL requirement. It does not discuss pagination or truncation of long guides, a minor residual gap for a full-text fetch.

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-loads the action and output format, then the trigger, then the sibling disambiguation. Every clause carries distinct information — no filler, no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('as markdown'), along with sourcing expectations and the URL-passing rule. For a one-parameter read tool with safety annotations, nothing an agent needs to call 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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real guidance beyond the schema: the URL must be passed exactly as search_recipes returned it, and it reinforces the absolute-URL requirement. That is meaningful behavioral constraint on the single parameter, not just restatement.

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 ('Read the full text of a cooking guide from recipes-daily.com, as markdown') and explicitly separates itself from the sibling show_recipes by defining what a guide is versus a recipe. An agent can route between read_guide and show_recipes without opening either 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 an explicit trigger ('Call this when search_recipes lists a guide that answers the question'), enumerates the question types guides cover (how/why, storage, substitution, equipment), and names the alternative for the excluded case ('For recipes, use show_recipes instead'). Both the when and the when-not are present.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), so the description correctly spends its budget on behavioral traits annotations can't express: strict AND matching of every query word, no boolean operators, and the consequence that multi-ingredient searches yield nothing. It also discloses the shortlist shape and that the first page carries cooking guides, which is useful non-obvious 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?

Front-loaded with the primary use case and routing rule, and every sentence carries information. It is on the dense side and the long compound sentences require careful reading, but there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (title, absolute URL, description, total time, servings, categories) and noting the guide list on page one. Combined with routing guidance and matching semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 real semantic value beyond the schema by spelling out the AND-matching rule and its failure mode for multi-word ingredient queries, and by framing the shortlist contents. Pagination/limit semantics are left to the schema, which handles them adequately.

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 (search recipes published at recipes-daily.com) and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling find_recipes_by_ingredients and read_guide by naming both. An agent can tell what this retrieves without opening the 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?

Explicitly says to call this for any 'what to make' question rather than answer from memory, and states the exclusion: for cooking from ingredients someone already has, use find_recipes_by_ingredients instead. The reason (AND-matching returns nothing for multiple ingredient names) makes the routing decision unambiguous.

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

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

Using the helpful readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations as a baseline, the description adds valuable context: cards 'appear only if you call this,' preserving the client-side visual behavior, and that order is kept. It discloses that the tool is the actual access mechanism for recipes. This goes beyond bare annotations without over-explaining.

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 description leads with the core behavior, then explains the context, and ends with an actionable ordering rule. Each sentence earns its place and avoids redundancy. It is compact yet complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The tool has one straightforward parameter, no output schema needed, and annotations document read safety and idempotency. The description fully covers what to do, when to do it, and how the result behaves. For this simple card-rendering tool, there are no important missing context gaps.

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?

The input schema already covers the parameter fully: type, constraints, format, and order semantics are all described. The description repeats the 'put the strongest recommendation first' ordering guidance but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's high coverage. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's action ("Draw recipes as picture cards") and distinguishes it from sibling search/find tools by specifying that it displays already-held recipe URLs. The phrase "the cards are how a person actually gets to a recipe" reinforces the display purpose. This is a specific verb+resource pairing with clear 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?

The description provides an explicit when-to-use trigger: 'Whenever you name recipes from this server in an answer, pass those same ones here.' It also implies, through 'URLs you are already holding,' that this is not a discovery or search tool, separating it from the siblings. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement naming alternative search tools, but the core usage context is clearly stated.

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