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

Annotations already convey that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety traits. It adds context about filtering by tags/categories/metadata, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or potential empty results. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with a concise summary sentence followed by labeled TRIGGERS and DIETARY OPTIONS sections. Every section serves a purpose; the trigger examples and option list are directly useful. It could be slightly shorter, but the structure aids readability and scanning.

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 filtered lookup tool, the description covers the core behavior and available filters, and the schema handles parameter details. There is no output schema, but the return type (recipes) is implicit from the name and tool family. A sentence about combining with cuisine or describing the output structure would improve completeness, but it's not critical.

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% description coverage for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating all supported dietary options (vegan, gluten-free, keto, etc.) which are not defined as enums in the schema. This full list helps agents construct valid inputs beyond the schema's examples.

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 matching specific dietary requirements.' It specifies the resource (recipes) and the filtering mechanism (tags, categories, metadata), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like recipes_get or recipes_search. The verb 'find' and scoping to dietary needs are unambiguous.

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 concrete trigger examples ('vegan recipes', 'gluten-free meals') and lists available dietary options, giving agents clear context on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the specialized purpose is evident from the name and sibling context.

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