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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating 'Returns public recipes,' clarifying that only public, not user-specific, recipes are returned. However, it does not disclose details about pagination, error behavior, or other operational aspects, keeping it at a baseline of 3.

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 moderately sized and well-structured with clear sections for TRIGGERS and SUPPORTED CUISINES. While it is longer than a minimal two-sentence description, all content is relevant and directly aids tool selection and invocation, so it earns a 4.

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 list tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns (public recipes), how to filter (cuisine), and examples of user queries. It does not explain return format, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 both parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing SUPPORTED CUISINES and providing trigger examples that show how the cuisine parameter maps to natural language, which goes beyond the schema's examples. This justifies a 4.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Browse recipes filtered by world cuisine type' and 'Returns public recipes from a specific culinary tradition.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recipes_search or recipes_find_by_ingredient, which focus on other criteria.

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 clear context with specific TRIGGERS examples like 'show me Vietnamese recipes' and 'Italian food,' which help an agent recognize when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, 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.