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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it explains the ranking mechanism ('ranked by how much of each they already own'), reveals the output includes named missing ingredients, and defines the meaning of `can_make: true`. It does not contradict 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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage context, and ends with a clarification of a key output field. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what output to expect, and even defines a potentially ambiguous field (`can_make`). There are no missing critical details that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter, `limit`, is 100% covered by the schema, whose description is clear ('How many recipes to return, best matches first.'). The description doesn't add extra semantics for the parameter, but given full schema coverage, a 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 purpose: to return recipes the person can cook with what they already have. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and names the resource ('recipes'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like list_recipes and add_pantry_items by focusing on 'what is already in their kitchen.'

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'whenever they ask what to cook, what's for dinner, what they can make without going to the shop, or what to do with what they have.' It also implies when not to use it (e.g., when they want to browse all recipes, they would use list_recipes), and the examples of user queries make the trigger conditions very clear.

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