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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is fully covered. The description does add one meaningful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: that only *published* recipes are searched. It says nothing about ranking, result limits, or pagination, so it lands at a solid-but-partial 3.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter search tool, though the terseness leaves useful content unstated rather than overstating.

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 a one-parameter schema at full coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials of what is searched. It is incomplete on the operational side: no mention of result ordering, expected result count, or truncation behavior, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Search query'), so the schema baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the query is matched against titles, ingredients, and instructions, i.e. full-text rather than a name-only lookup, but no syntax, matching rules, or tokenization details are given.

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 and resource ('full-text search across published recipe titles, ingredients, and instructions') and scopes it to published content. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like ingredients_search_recipes or categories_recipes, which an agent must infer on its own.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance is given. With three other search/list siblings in the set, the description should have said when this tool is preferred over ingredients_search_recipes or recipes_list, but it offers nothing.

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