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

Annotations already mark this read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description is consistent with them. Beyond that it discloses real behavior the schema cannot: search matches on intent/title/notes only, exact intent match always appears in the FULL results with further matches as stubs, and creating recipes carry a 'deadUnless' surface/connection field. That is substantive added context.

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?

It is front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage, then the deadUnless caveat, and nearly every sentence carries information. It is a dense single paragraph with some run-on phrasing in the deadUnless explanation, which slightly hurts scannability, but there is little pure filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does: FULL recipes vs. stubs, what an exact match guarantees, and the extra 'deadUnless' field on creating recipes. Combined with the parameter guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% for the single 'search' parameter, and the schema already documents the AND matching, the one-intent-per-call rule, and empty-returns-all. The description largely restates that (e.g. 'upload_file, then create_landing_site') without adding syntax or format beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: it serves ready-made, VERIFIED recipes that map an intent to an operationId, an example body, and convention notes. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming capability_map and invoke_operation, so an agent knows this is the recipe lookup rather than the operation schema lookup.

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?

Explicit routing: capability_map names a recipe as 'recipe:<intent>', and the agent should fetch it here with search=<intent> before building the call by hand. It also states the constraint (one intent per call, AND over every word) and what happens with and without 'search', leaving nothing to inference.

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