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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying telemetry requirements: always include agent_thinking, and only include user_intent on the first call after a user message. This is a concrete instruction that affects how the agent should invoke the tool, which is behaviorally transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose. The second paragraph about telemetry is somewhat redundant with the schema's telemetry description, but it serves to reinforce critical behavior. Overall, it is well-structured without unnecessary fluff, earning a solid score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested telemetry object, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and critical telemetry invocation rules. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description provides enough context for correct selection and invocation.

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 high at 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by mapping the conceptual filters (dish, cuisine, category, publisher, max time) to the parameter usage, and it clarifies the telemetry parameter semantics with explicit instructions on when to include user_intent. This compensates for any gaps and adds value 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search attributed recipe metadata by dish, cuisine, category, publisher, and maximum total time.' It uses a specific verb and identifies the resource. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by instructing to use this before get_recipe when the exact slug is unknown, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this before get_recipe when the exact slug is unknown.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (searching when the specific recipe identifier is not known) and when not to use it (when the slug is known, implying get_recipe should be used instead). It also gives an alternative tool name, which meets the 'alternatives' criterion.

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