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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are ranked summaries, nutrition is computed from the same food rows lookup_food returns (checkable rather than asserted), and recipes are original.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the routing instruction in the second sentence. The trailing sentence about health_topic is tangential to this tool and slightly dilutes focus, but the whole is still compact and readable.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does explain that results are ranked summaries with a follow-up path. It omits any mention of result-count behavior or pagination beyond the limit parameter, which is a minor gap for a 7-parameter search tool.

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% and every filter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates the same dimensions (free text, health goal, category, ingredient, time, allergen) without adding syntax or format detail; the health_topic remark is about a sibling tool rather than clarifying a parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (raw/no-cook vegan recipes on Heathy) plus the filter dimensions, and implicitly distinguishes itself from get_recipe by positioning itself as the summary-level search. An agent can tell it apart from search_foods and nutrient_ranking from the wording.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_recipe with a slug for full detail, which is clear context for when this tool is sufficient vs. when a follow-up is needed. It does not state when to prefer it over sibling search tools like search_foods, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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