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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail that the query matches both meal names and recipe ingredients, but it does not disclose result ordering, pagination behavior, or what happens when no filters are provided.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional matching behavior earns its place. Formatting is clean and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is a simple, filterable search with fully documented parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations. The description is adequate for correct invocation. It would be slightly stronger if it explicitly directed users to get_recipe for retrieving a specific meal's full details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description lists the main filter dimensions, which aligns with the schema, but it does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('NoshUp's recipe catalogue'), and the search dimensions (cuisine, dietary preference, ingredient, meal type). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_recipe and get_flyer_deals by focusing on catalogue-wide search.

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 conveys that this tool is for finding meals by multiple criteria, which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the search-oriented phrasing and sibling names make the intended usage reasonably obvious.

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