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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add operational context. It adds that results are short picks, that limit defaults to 5 and maxes at 20, and that query matches titles, tags, and ingredients. Return fields and pagination behavior are still not specified.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before listing optional inputs and the get_explore_recipe follow-up. The example is useful, though the initial question is slightly less direct than a plain declarative sentence.

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 no output schema and three optional parameters, the description covers all inputs, default/max limit behavior, and the path to full recipe details via get_explore_recipe. It does not specify the fields in the short picks returned, but it gives enough context to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning beyond the schema: query is matched against titles, tags, and ingredients, and author is illustrated with "Gusto". The limit default and max are already in 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 clearly states that this tool browses recipes shared by people and Gusto on What's Cooking, and it explicitly contrasts the result with get_explore_recipe. It does not distinguish its purpose from whats_for_dinner, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly says to call get_explore_recipe with an id when the full recipe is needed, which gives clear routing guidance for the closest sibling. It does not state when to use this tool versus whats_for_dinner or any cases where this tool should be avoided.

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