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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the time-limit parameter and the quick-meal focus, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured trigger list. The trigger list is slightly long but serves as a practical reference for intent matching, earning its place.

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 simple with well-documented parameters and annotations. The description explains the core behavior and usage context, which is sufficient for the tool's complexity. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear 'Find quick recipes' statement.

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 full descriptions for all three parameters (limit, mealType, maxMinutes). The description only reiterates the time-limit concept already present in the schema, providing no additional semantic value beyond the structured data.

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: finding quick recipes within a time limit. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like recipes_get and recipes_search by emphasizing the time constraint and quick-meal context.

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 phrases provide concrete examples of when to use this tool, such as 'quick recipes', 'fast meals', and 'recipes under 30 minutes'. It also mentions the busy weeknight use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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