Search Allerhande Recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail (results cached up to 24 hours), but it does not describe result format, pagination, or whether empty results are possible, leaving clear 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core search purpose, followed by a relevant caching note. Nothing is redundant or wasted.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description is mostly sufficient. It could optionally mention that results are a list of recipes that can then be passed to ah_get_recipe_details, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the query parameter meaning by listing dish name, ingredient, or keyword, but adds no details about the limit parameter or query syntax beyond the schema.

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 (Search) and resource (official Albert Heijn Allerhande recipe collection), and names the searchable fields (dish name, ingredient, keyword). It is clearly distinguishable from ah_get_recipe_details, which retrieves a specific recipe rather than searching.

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 search context is implied clearly by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus ah_get_recipe_details or how to proceed after finding a recipe. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer the workflow.

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