Find Umami recipes

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.