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 safe read nature is known. The description adds no further behavioral context such as return format, pagination, or no-match behavior, so it stays at baseline.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a well-structured TRIGGERS list. It is appropriately sized, though the trigger examples are somewhat repetitive, each line adds value for intent matching.

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 read-only search tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage triggers. It could explicitly state that it returns a list of recipes, but this is implied by the tool name and purpose sentence.

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%, with every parameter having a description and example. The description merely mentions a subset of filters (calories, protein, carbs, fat) without adding meaning 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 finds recipes by specific nutritional targets, listing filters like max calories, minimum protein, max carbs, and max fat. This distinguishes it from sibling recipe finders like recipes_find_by_ingredient or recipes_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 TRIGGERS section provides explicit example user intents (e.g., 'high protein recipes', 'recipes under 400 calories') that should route to this tool. It gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not name alternatives or exclusions.

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