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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are subscription content with a hard quoting restriction (name and link only unless imported), and the return value is Cookidoo ids meant for import. This is policy/constraint information the schema and annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and audience first, then routing to the sibling, then output/next-step and the licensing constraint. No filler, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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?

Output schema handles return shape and annotations handle safety, so the description only needs to cover routing, downstream use, and the quoting restriction — all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to call or act on this result is missing.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, including the default/max for limit and the language expectation for query. The description adds no further syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource — search Cookidoo's catalogue of Thermomix recipes through the user's connected account — and explicitly demarcates it from the sibling list_cookidoo_recipes for the user's own recipes. The agent can pick between the two Cookidoo search/list tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete user-utterance triggers ("find a Bimby recipe for", "search my Bimby for"), names the alternative for own recipes, and states the downstream step (pass returned ids to import_cookidoo_recipe). When-to-use and what-to-do-next are both explicit.

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