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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description is consistent with it. What the description adds is domain framing — that a recipe is a verified single-project/single-job procedure — not behavioral detail such as result ordering, ranking, or what happens with very short queries. Nothing contradicts the annotations, but little is added beyond them.

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 first sentence is long and cluttered with a parenthetical example list, and the trailing definition of 'recipe' is explanatory context rather than actionable guidance. The core actionable content (what to search by, and the omit-for-newest behavior) is buried in the middle rather than front-loaded.

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 only two optional parameters and an output schema in place, the agent has everything needed to call the tool: what it searches, how to phrase the query, what omitting the query does, and a definition of the returned entity. The only remaining gap is sibling routing, which is a usage concern rather than a completeness one.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the query semantics already present in the schema ('search by what the user wants done or by a project's name, or omit the query to list the newest recipes') and says nothing at all about the limit parameter.

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 states a concrete verb (find/search) and resource (recipes of how to accomplish a job with open-source GitHub software), with concrete example domains (subtitles, CAD, video-to-Markdown). It implicitly separates itself from the get_* siblings by framing the tool as discovery rather than retrieval of a specific item. The undefined acronym 'UGT' and the roundabout phrasing 'find how UGT gets a job done' keep it from being a crisp verb+resource statement.

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?

It tells the agent how to drive the query — search by user intent or project name, or omit it to list newest recipes — which is genuine usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over its siblings (get_recipe, get_project, get_install), nor any exclusion such as 'use get_recipe once you know the exact recipe'.

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