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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no new behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, auth requirements, output format) beyond confirming it is a knowledge-retrieval tool. It does not contradict annotations.

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 structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by TRIGGERS and TOPICS lists that are directly useful for an agent. It is moderately long but every section serves a purpose; it avoids fluff and is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger phrases, and topic examples. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it could be more explicit about what the response contains (e.g., a list of tips vs. a single tip).

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'topic' parameter, including examples like 'knife skills' and 'making pho broth'. The description's TOPICS list adds more examples but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, which already explains the parameter well.

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 'Get practical cooking tips and expert techniques for any topic,' which clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (cooking tips). It also lists example topics (knife skills, rice, pho, grilling) that distinguish it from sibling tools like cooking_convert_units or cooking_get_substitutions, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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 TRIGGERS section provides explicit examples of when to invoke the tool ('how do I X', 'tips for X', 'best way to cook X'), giving an agent clear usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or direct the agent to alternative tools like cooking_convert_units or recipes_get.

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