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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers important behavior: it returns ranked summaries, recipes are original, and nutrition figures are computed from the same food rows as lookup_food, making them checkable. It does not explain ranking behavior or query semantics, but it gives a clear behavioral picture for a search tool.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose and search dimensions, data provenance, output type with a pointer to get_recipe, and a routing note for health_topic. The most important operational detail, that this returns summaries, is clearly stated before the alternative is mentioned.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect (ranked summaries), where to go for full recipe details (get_recipe), and when to use a different tool (health_topic). For a 7-optional-parameter search tool, this is sufficient for both selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter documentation is already complete. The description adds only conceptual mapping by listing search dimensions (free text, health goal, category, ingredient, time, allergen) which mirror the schema fields but add no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Find') and names the exact resource: raw / no-cook vegan recipes on Heathy, searchable by multiple criteria. It also distinguishes itself from get_recipe by clarifying that this tool returns ranked summaries rather than full recipe details.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use get_recipe for ingredients, method and full nutrition, and prefer health_topic for 'what should I eat for X' questions. This tells an agent exactly when this tool is the right choice and when to use a sibling instead.

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