searchRecipes

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

Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals that the search covers full source code, not just metadata, which is a valuable behavioral trait beyond what the schema specifies. It also implicitly frames the operation as a read-only search, though it does not disclose result format or potential limitations. This is adequate for a simple 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by useful topic examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the search scope and provides varied examples. It does not mention what the return value looks like, which is a minor gap due to the absent output schema, but the name 'searchRecipes' strongly implies a list of recipes. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for a lightweight 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 description coverage is 100% and the parameter already includes a description with examples. The tool description adds context that the query applies across multiple fields (titles, descriptions, tags, source code), but this is more about behavior than parameter semantics. It does not add meaningful syntax, constraints, or format details 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?

The description specifies a clear action (search) and a distinct resource (recipes) with explicit scope: keyword across titles, descriptions, tags, and full source code. This differentiates it from the sibling tools listRecipes (list all) and getRecipe (retrieve by ID). The verb-to-resource relationship is specific and unambiguous.

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 strongly implies when to use it ('search by keyword', 'works for any topic') and provides common topic examples. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of listRecipes or getRecipe, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Clear context, but no direct alternative naming.

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