trmnl_search_recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it searches published recipes and gives query syntax, but does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or return format. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the core action 'Search published recipes', followed by a helpful definition and query guidance. It is brief and mostly free of waste, though the trailing 'TRMNL GET /api/recipes' may be extraneous for an agent. Overall structure is clear and efficient.

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 moderate complexity (nested query object, no output schema) and annotations covering safety, the description provides essential purpose and query format. However, it omits explanation of pagination (cursor, page_size), sorting (sort_by), and the shape of results (e.g., a list of recipes). These gaps are notable for a search tool without an output schema.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description must compensate for some parameters. It does add meaning to the central `query` parameter by explaining 'Use one or two keywords, or #category to filter by category', which is more specific than the schema's 'Keywords, or #category'. Other parameters like limit, cursor, sort_by, and page_size are documented in the schema, but the description does not elaborate on them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search published recipes' and clarifies that recipes are plugin settings other users published. It distinguishes from tools that manage one's own plugins, but does not explicitly name sibling tools like trmnl_get_recipe or trmnl_catalog_search. Clear enough to identify the tool's function.

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 offers guidance on query format ('Use one or two keywords, or #category to filter by category'), which implies usage for searching. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trmnl_get_recipe or trmnl_catalog_search, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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