list_ingredients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses important pagination behavior: per_page max 20, larger values silently reduced, and that callers must paginate. It also mentions that subrecipes appear in the list, which is a non-obvious behavior useful to callers.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, and pagination caveat.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: account scope, pagination behavior, silent cap, and the use case for finding ingredient_id. It does not describe the response shape, but the description gives enough for an agent to know what the tool returns and how to invoke it correctly.

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 67%, but the description adds little beyond the schema. It repeats the per_page cap that the schema already documents, and provides no additional meaning for the page or search parameters beyond what the schema minimally says. The undocumented page parameter is not explained in the 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 operation: 'List the account's ingredient library.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_recipes (recipes vs. ingredients) and list_recipe_ingredients (ingredients within a recipe) by specifying the ingredient library scope. The added context about subrecipes and ingredient_id clarifies its unique purpose.

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 a specific use case: finding the ingredient_id needed to add a subrecipe to another recipe. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_recipes, get_ingredient, or list_recipe_ingredients, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than clearly stated.

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