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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds real value by listing the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about how many recipes are returned (the `adet` parameter defaults to 5 with a maximum of 10) or about behavior when the ingredient yields no results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that puts the selection basis before the returned fields, with no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing return-field list reads as a colon-delimited inventory rather than integrated guidance.

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 three-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers inputs at a high level and the return shape in detail, which is the main missing piece otherwise. What it omits is the meaning of `adet` and any statement about result limits or empty-result behavior, which an agent would need to call it well.

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 67%: `malzeme` and `sure_dakika` are documented in the schema, and the description reinforces their meaning by naming ingredient and time as the selection criteria. The third parameter, `adet`, has no description anywhere and the prose never explains whether it is a recipe count or an ingredient quantity, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 reflects that the schema does most of the work.

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 names a specific verb and resource in "tarif önerisi" (recipe suggestion) and scopes it to a source, "Ortak Mutfak", plus the inputs that drive it ("malzemeye ve süreye göre"). It also enumerates what comes back (name, time, category, description, link). Sibling tools (doviz_ve_gostergeler, hukuk_terimi, yazi_ara) are in completely different domains, so no explicit sibling routing is needed, but that also means there is no affirmative differentiation to earn a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this when it has an ingredient and a time budget, since both are mentioned as the selection basis. There is no statement of when not to use it, no mention of what happens if no recipe matches, and no explanation of how the optional count behaves. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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