search_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are ranked by ingredient overlap when ingredients_on_hand is provided, which is genuine value beyond structured data, but it omits result limits, pagination, and read-only confirmation for what is clearly a query 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the search modes and followed by the one behavior that isn't obvious from the parameters. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 three-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, this covers the essentials: what can be searched and how results are ordered. The remaining gap is criteria-combination semantics and any result-size expectations.

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 only 33% — only ingredients_on_hand has any schema documentation (an example array) — so the description must compensate. It does map each parameter to a search mode (tags, title/keyword query, ingredients) and explains ranking for ingredients_on_hand, but it never says whether the three criteria combine with AND or OR, which is the key ambiguity for a multi-criteria search.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('recipes') and enumerates the three search modes: ingredients on hand, tags, and title/keyword query. It distinguishes searching from a plain listing implicitly, though it never names list_recipes or get_recipe as the contrasting siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the criteria (use it when you have ingredients, tags, or a keyword), and all parameters are optional so it reads as a general-purpose search. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer list_recipes or get_recipe, nor on what happens when multiple criteria are supplied.

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