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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are truncated, and narrowing the query is the remedy, with get_recipe as the drill-down path. It doesn't quantify the truncation limit, which the schema's limit max=50 only partially clarifies.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the trigger and packs in the truncation caveat and the follow-on tool. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the one non-obvious workflow fact (truncation, then narrow, then get_recipe), leaving only minor gaps like result ordering.

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%, so both query and limit are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's 'narrow a truncated result' hints that query is the narrowing lever but adds no syntax, matching rules, or limit guidance beyond the schema.

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+resource: searching private recipes, and names the detail-fetch sibling get_recipe. The 'private' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the public-content search sibling, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Use this when you need to search private recipes' gives a clear trigger, and 'then use get_recipe for details' names the follow-on alternative. It also tells the agent what to do when results are truncated. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so not a 5.

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