suggest_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'preserving missing foods and tools' is the only behavioral hint — it vaguely gestures at allowing incomplete matches but doesn't state that results may omit ingredients, how they're ranked, or that this is a non-mutating query. Defaults like max_missing_tools=0 that silently restrict results go unmentioned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is concise, but for a six-parameter tool it is undersized — brevity here comes at the cost of information rather than from efficiency.

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 needn't be described, but with no annotations, six undocumented parameters, and no differentiation from search_recipes, an agent lacks what it needs to invoke this confidently. The one-line description is not adequate for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so every parameter depends on prose. The sentence mentions foods and tools, but limit, max_missing_foods, max_missing_tools, and include_foods_on_hand are never explained, and even the two named params get no format or semantics beyond 'IDs'.

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 verb 'suggest' and resource 'recipes' are specific, and 'from food/tool IDs' narrows the input domain. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_recipes, so an agent cannot tell which of the two to pick without opening both schemas.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says this is for ingredient-driven recommendations versus explicit search, nor when the missing-ingredient tolerance should be relaxed. The relationship to search_recipes is left entirely to inference.

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