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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds two things beyond them: the auth requirement ('no account needed') and the shape of the result set (ids, names, descriptions, URLs).

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, no filler. The core action and coverage come first, the auth and return-shape facts second. Every 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, and the description still summarizes them. All three parameters are optional with defaults, but the description never mentions the default environment (kitchen) or limit cap, leaving minor gaps an agent must get from the schema.

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 67%, so the schema documents query semantics (name/description matching, empty = newest) and the environment enum. The description's 'by name or keyword' and content-type list roughly mirror the schema without adding format, matching rules, or default behavior.

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 gives a specific verb (search) and resource (the public catalog) and enumerates the content types covered: recipes, lab protocols, event templates, workouts. This cleanly separates it from siblings like load_public_recipe (fetch one by id) and list_public_runs.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should search when it lacks an id and load_public_recipe when it has one, but no alternative or exclusion is stated. The 'no account needed' note adds a useful precondition but is not when-to-use guidance.

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