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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds real value by restricting results to 'published' recipes and implying a substring/containment match, but says nothing about result caps, ranking, or empty-match 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint ('published') and the matching rule appear immediately and nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only search with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. It is missing the routing information against the sibling search_recipes and any hint about result volume, which is the main remaining gap.

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% and the single parameter is already described as 'Ingredient name or fragment to match'. The description's phrase 'contains the given text' merely restates the fragment/substring idea, adding no syntax, casing, or matching-rule detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Find published recipes') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('ingredient list contains the given text'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_recipes, leaving the agent to infer the difference from names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_recipes or categories_recipes, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must guess that this is the ingredient-scoped search variant purely from the tool name.

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