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 "Read-only" line is mildly redundant. What the description uniquely adds is real behavioral context: all optional filters combine with AND, and the result set is paged with next_offset/has_more — plus the actual response shape despite no output schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with scope and routing, then filter combination, then pagination shape, then handoff. No filler and nothing buried.

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 16-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: scope of data, filter conjunction, paging contract, response fields, and the follow-up tool. Nothing material is left to guesswork.

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 already 100%, yet the description contributes non-obvious semantics the schema omits: all filters are optional and are ANDed together, and pagination should advance via next_offset rather than ad-hoc offsets. That is genuine added meaning over the parameter list.

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+resource ("Search the user's own recipes and those shared with them") and enumerates the dimensions searched (text, category, filing facet, ingredient, status). It also implicitly separates itself from get_recipe by naming that sibling for opening a single record.

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 a clear preference order: try this before searching the web, and hand off to get_recipe to open a result. It stops short of explicit when-NOT cases (e.g. browsing history or saved menus via list_history/plan_menu), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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