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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds no specific behavioral details beyond this (e.g., no mention of default matching behavior or result limits), though these are covered in the schema. It does not contradict the 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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a compact trigger list. Every element earns its place—the first sentence defines the operation, and the triggers make the invocation contexts immediately actionable.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately conveys the use case and scope. There is no output schema to describe return values, but the tool's behavior is straightforward and the trigger list provides enough context for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter fully documented (ingredients, limit, matchAll). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but no compensation is needed because the schema already covers it thoroughly.

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: 'Find recipes that use specific ingredients you have on hand.' It also distinguishes from siblings like recipes_search and recipes_get by focusing on ingredient-driven discovery and provides sample trigger phrases that clarify the exact use case.

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 trigger list gives explicit contexts for when to use this tool ('what can I make with X and Y', 'I have X, what can I cook', 'fridge clean out recipes'). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like recipes_search, but the use cases are clear enough to guide selection.

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