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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions accessibility of the recipe book and the recipeBookId omission condition; it does not disclose return values, error behavior, side effects, or required permissions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It lacks coverage of required fields, return value, error cases, and the meaning of most parameters, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description only adds meaning to recipeBookId by specifying the condition for omission. The other 11 parameters are left undefined, leaving their semantics to be inferred solely from their names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new recipe in an accessible Umami recipe book'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit_recipe, get_recipe, and find_recipes. The scope is explicit 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 implies usage for creating new recipes but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The conditional about recipeBookId provides some usage context, indicating when it may be omitted, but lacks a clear when-not-to-use statement.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavioral traits: fields are edited selectively, omitted fields are preserved, and providing tags replaces the entire tag list. It does not mention return values, permissions, or error behavior, but the disclosed traits go well beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by concise behavioral notes. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence adds value.

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 has 12 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the core update semantics but does not address what is returned, how missing recipeIds are handled, or the structure of nested fields like nutritionInformation. The information provided is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for a complex 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds important semantics about how tags behave (replacement) and clarifies the update model (preserve omitted fields), but it does not explain the purpose or format of individual parameters like nutritionInformation, importUrl, or public, leaving many params to be inferred from names and types.

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 starts with 'Edit selected fields of an existing Umami recipe,' which clearly states the verb (edit), resource (existing Umami recipe), and scope (selected fields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_recipe (new recipe) and get_recipe (read-only).

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 phrase 'existing Umami recipe' implies this tool is for updates, contrasting with create_recipe, and 'Omitted fields are preserved' explains the partial-update behavior. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search is limited to 'recently updated' recipes and a 'bounded set of candidates', offering some behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe sorting or pagination, or mention side effects, leaving notable gaps.

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 purpose and containing no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the search scope and supported fields without unnecessary details.

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?

The tool has no annotations or output schema, making the description the main source of information. It provides a reasonable overview but leaves ambiguity around 'recently updated' (time window?) and 'bounded set' (how bounded?), and does not clarify return structure or default behavior like limit. For a search tool this may be adequate, but there are clear gaps.

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 schema already provides descriptions for three of four parameters, and the description adds context about the fields searched (name, ingredients, directions, notes, source URL, times, tags). This complements the schema but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond that, and the 'limit' parameter still lacks a schema description.

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 tool's function: finding recipes by searching across multiple recipe books. It uses the specific verb 'Find' with a resource ('recipes') and mentions searchable fields. This distinguishes it from siblings such as get_recipe (single recipe retrieval) and list_recipe_books (book listing).

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 implies this tool is for searching recipes across books, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives like get_recipe or list_recipe_books, nor does it mention any exclusions. The context is clear from the tool name, but there is no direct guidance on selecting among the sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the useful detail that the response contains 'full editable text fields', indicating what data is returned. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal but not empty.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core functionality without any unnecessary words. Every element ('Get', 'full editable text fields', 'by id') earns its place. It is appropriately concise.

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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with one parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the action, the parameter's role, and the type of data returned. It lacks details like error responses or authorization requirements, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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 the description must compensate. It explicitly maps 'by id' to the 'recipeId' parameter, confirming its purpose. This gives the parameter clear meaning beyond the bare schema definition. The mention of 'editable text fields' also hints at the response shape, adding context for what the parameter leads to.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recipe') and identifies the retrieval method ('by id'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that list, search, create, or edit recipes. The phrase 'full editable text fields' further clarifies the scope of the response.

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 context is clear: this is for fetching a single recipe by its ID. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like find_recipes for searching, but the 'by id' qualifier implies that it's for direct ID lookup, which differentiates it from search tools. No explicit exclusions are given, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clarifies the access scope ('owned by or shared with') and the authentication requirement, and 'List' clearly implies a non-mutating read operation. It does not disclose output formatting or pagination, but that is a minor omission for a simple list 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first states the action and resource, the second provides the usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it defines the resource scope, notes the authentication requirement, and explains the main use case (obtaining a recipeBookId for create_recipe). It does not list return fields in detail, but it names the key result value the agent needs.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level details, but none are needed. It instead tells the agent what the result is used for (obtaining a recipeBookId), which is more valuable here.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource: 'recipe books owned by or shared with the authenticated Umami account.' It also distinguishes from sibling recipe-focused tools by explaining that it provides the recipeBookId needed before creating a recipe.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to obtain a recipeBookId before creating a recipe,' which clearly signals when to call the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but sibling tool names like find_recipes and create_recipe make the boundary apparent.

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