v1recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns at most 10 results and supports pagination via offset, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get a list' implies idempotence). The transparency is good but not complete.

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 sentences long, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and pagination guidance in the second. There is no redundant or unnecessary text. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no siblings), the description covers the essential behavior: search, result limit, and pagination. It does not explain the structure of returned recipes, but an output schema is absent and may not be critical for a list tool. The description feels adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already documents parameter meaning. The description adds value by explaining the pagination behavior ('Returns at most 10 results. To access more... use the offset parameter'), which gives practical context beyond the schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Get a list of recipes'), the resource ('recipes'), and the trigger ('for a given search query'). It also specifies a key constraint (maximum 10 results) and pagination behavior, making the purpose unambiguous. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not required.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the offset parameter for pagination ('To access more than the first 10 results, use the offset parameter'). It implies the tool is for basic search queries but does not specify when not to use it or list alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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